Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

INVERCLYDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

SOLICITORS IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

The Arts

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek a supplementary estimate to enable her to meet claims for greater financial aid to the arts.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. I can assure him that I shall not overlook any opportunity of increasing the resources available for the arts.

Mr. Jenkins: I am equally grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. When she is putting in further applications for financial assistance for the arts will she take into consideration the present peril of the actual buildings? Will she consider the position of the Theatres Trust, which at present exists without any Government aid, and the possibility of coming to its aid, thereby enabling it, in turn, to ensure that theatrical buildings continue to exist and carry out the essential task which they perform, both in our artistic and economic life?

Mrs. Williams: I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. As he will know, provision is already being considered by the Arts Council for those poorer provincial theatres that are in some difficulty.

Mr. Hannam: Will the Secretary of State clarify the situation regarding the land fund? Why are the Government blocking the very worthwhile National Heritage Fund Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) especially in view of the Prime Minister's declaration last September that this matter would be referred to the Think Tank for its proposals? What has happened to the Minister with responsibility for the Arts? Is he on strike?

Mrs. Williams: If he waits for a little while the hon. Gentleman will hear that a full statement is about to be made on the whole question of the land fund and the national heritage.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an urgent need for much more support for the arts in the regions and for a new museums' council to be set up so that some of our collections can be taken out of storage? Will she also take on board the need to preserve some of our theatre buildings which are under threat of redevelopment, such as the London Pavilion? All these matters require resources from her Department.

Mrs. Williams: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the arts. Last year a substantial increase was made in the arts budget which was well above the normal rate of inflation. I do not think that my hon. Friend will be too dissatisfied with the programme that will shortly be announced for next year.

Mr. Silvester: Does the Secretary of State accept the main conclusions of the Drew report, and in particular the granting of central funds to the seven designated provincial museums?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will shortly hear our conclusions on the Drew report. May I say to him, loudly and clearly, that it is very important that national resources that are made available for the arts on a rising line should be complemented by contributions from local authorities. Local authorities are


not always as forthcoming as they should be.

Mr. Faulds: May I simply underline to my right hon. Friend that many of us are eager to hear the Government's reactions to the recommendations in the Drew report? When may we expect a statement on this matter?

Mrs. Williams: I have already indicated that a statement will be made fairly shortly. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased when he hears it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We were glad to read in The Daily Telegraph this morning of the increased touring grant to the Prospect Theatre Company. Will the Secretary of State look into the question of what further financial aid—of either a capital or current nature—can be made to that excellent company in order that it may remain based at the Old Vic?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a matter for the decision of the Arts Council. But I can assure him that the council was last year, and will I hope very shortly be, in a position to make decisions about new projects as well as about continuing existing projects. The Government have given pretty generous support to the arts in the past couple of years.

Mr. Speaker: I shall have to call fewer supplementary questions on the rest of the questions if we are to make progress.

Professional Association of Teachers

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to her reply to the honourable and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), what is the estimated membership of the Professional Association of Teachers, whose application for membership of the Burnham committee she has rejected.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The latest membership figure available from the certification office is 10,896. I understand that the association now claims some 12,000 serving members.

Mr. King: Does it not remain a fact that, whether the membership is 10,000 or 12,000, this fast growing union, pledged as it is never to strike, is denied recognition by the Department whilst a teachers' union of 3,000 is granted recognition? In these difficult times, when one finds a union that is prepared to behave responsibly, as this union is, why on earth does not the Minister encourage it?

Mr. Oakes: We must take into account the fact that there are nearly 300,000 members of the NUT and there are 127,056 members of the NAS and UWT, which will have six representatives. The criterion is whether the PAT represents a separate category of teachers. My right hon. Friend has carefully considered representations from the association—indeed, I met representatives on 17 January—but does not propose to add it to the teachers' panel.

Dr. Boyson: At the present time of industrial disputes, including disputes in schools, will not the Minister welcome the existence of a recognised union in the teaching profession pledged not to strike? Will he inform all local authorities, of whatever colour, that as it is a recognised trade union members of it can be appointed as health and safety representatives in schools?

Mr. Oakes: It is basically a question of the numbers of members of the association. The health and safety aspects are matters for individual local authorities in deciding whether to recognise the association.

Mr. Beith: Does not this case illustrate what a lot there is wrong with the Burnham structure? Even if the PAT were recognised and brought on to the Burnham committee, the single channel system under which all the claims of different unions are put forward by one union, the largest teachers' union, makes the system very ineffective. Is not that particularly noticeable when many teaching organisations regard the NUT's claim as irresponsible?

Mr. Oakes: With regard to the representative character of Burnham, my right hon. Friend has recently reviewed its membership and will be making a determination under the Remuneration of Teachers Act.

Universities and Polytechnics (Overseas Students)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment she has made of the extent to which universities and polytechnics have made arrangements to comply with her policy of reducing the proportion of overseas students to the level reached in 1975–76.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: While full statistics for 1978–79 are not yet available, the indications are that many universities and polytechnics have more overseas students than they had in 1975–76.

Mr. Beith: Is it not clear from what is happening that universities cannot and will not operate a system of discrimination based on country of origin? Is the Secretary of State aware that many vice-chancellors consider the policy to be not only against the spirit of the way in which universities are conducted but even against their charters?

Mrs. Williams: I merely say loudly and clearly that I am strongly in favour of there being overseas students at universities and polytechnics. Nevertheless, it is the case that in 1970–71 there were 32,000 overseas students in further and higher education in this country and that our latest figures, for 1976–77, show that there were 83,000, an increase of two and a half times in the course of six years.
It is incumbent upon the Government to try to establish what are reasonable figures for overseas students. I strongly support there being a substantial number of overseas students. In this country we have proportionately between four and five times more than, say, the United States. But there are planning difficulties about leaving the matter wide open. I am trying to find the best possible solution to the problem in planning terms, while permitting overseas students to come here in substantial numbers.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we get it across to institutions of higher education that the alternative to a numerical quota is rationing by the purse through fee increases? That is much more objectionable and entails increases

in fees for domestic students as well, disturbing the whole balance of their financing, more particularly in the difficult conditions they will face during the 1980s in any event.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The choice of paths is inescapable. Either there is a quota, which many students and academics find objectionable, or there is rationing by the purse, which I and many of my hon. Friends regard as objectionable. We are trying to find a better solution to this question, which is now under consideration. But it is important that the House should recognise that it is not an easy problem to deal with and that Britain is at present something of a magnet to those overseas students who wish to learn in the English language.

Educational Maintenance Allowances

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what criteria she will base her decision to select certain areas for means-tested educational maintenance allowances; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science upon what criteria she will decide which local education authorities shall, in the whole or part of their areas, run pilot schemes of universal means-tested educational maintenance allowances as from September this year.

Mr. Oakes: Only those authorities which volunteer can be considered for the pilot programme, so the final selection must depend on the composition of the list of volunteers as well as the level of resources available.
My right hon. Friend's aim of offering help to the more hard pressed areas will lead her to consider particularly, amongst the wide variety of factors which she will take into account, the level of participation of 16 to 18-year-olds in full time education, the level of youth unemployment, assisted area or inner city status and indicators of educational disadvantage.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend accept that while many of us welcome the whole idea of, and tendency towards, mandatory educational maintenance allowances, there is nonetheless great


worry about areas competing for them and possibly even on occasions even refusing them? Will he also accept that, although I appreciate the difficulties, means testing seems to me a sad business, and will cause all kinds of anomalies? We hope that one day a major struggle will be waged so that none of that occurs and all areas receive mandatory maintenance allowances for education.

Mr. Oakes: Provision is being made in the Education Bill so that when resources are available it could become, by an affirmative resolution of this House and of the other place, a scheme for the whole country. But resources are not available now. The resources now available are sufficient to allow coverage of about 15 per cent of the relevant population.

Mr. Fowler: Is my hon. Friend aware that the principle that authorities must volunteer has had side effects that no one foresaw when it was first determined? Some Tory authorities, including my own in Salop, which include areas of great deprivation and high youth unemployment, refused to volunteer, not on grounds of principle but merely because it is a scheme put forward by a Labour Government.

Mr. Oakes: There is no question of any authority which does not wish to participate being compelled to do so. It is up to the electors of my hon. Friend's constituency to take the appropriate action.

Mr. Forman: As there is only a very limited quantity of public money available for these purposes, would it not be better if it were allocated on the basis of the child's educational potential, and if it went more to part-time further education than full-time education in school?

Mr. Oakes: The scheme will apply to both schools and colleges of further education. I would be totally opposed to the sort of scheme the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, a sort of 16-plus scholarship.

Mr. Ovenden: Does my hon. Friend accept that the most serious problem about educational maintenance awards is the variation between those authorities that face up to their responsibilities

and those, such as my own in Kent, which do not? Will not his proposals make that situation far worse?

Mr. Oakes: I do not think that it will make the situation worse. There are limited resources available, and I consider that this will be a valuable experiment in preparation for when the full scheme can come into operation when the resources are available.

Mr. George: Will my hon. Friend publish a list of volunteers? I would be most interested to see whether my own authority, in whose area only 13 per cent of the youngsters go into further and higher education, is prepared to submit its name for consideration.

Mr. Oakes: That may be possible when the final list comes in. To date, 33 authorities in England have firmly indicated that they wish to be considered in the programme.

School Charities

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of schools registered as charities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I regret that it would not be possible for the Charity Commissioners readily to identify the total number of school charities from the 126,000 registered charities, but I understand that there are likely to be either registered or excepted charities in respect of, or associated with, the majority of the 8,000 maintained voluntary schools and the 2,300 independent schools.

Miss Lestor: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the Treasury, the Home Office and certainly her Department looked at the whole question of registration of educational establishments as charities and distinguished between those catering for a certain need in the education system and those like a certain school in my constituency where the parents argue for the right to pay for their children's education but expect to be subsidised by the State?

Miss Jackson: I entirely accept the last point made by my hon. Friend. As she will know, the Treasury, the Home Office and my Department have been considering these matters at length and


for some time. Sadly, it has not so far proved possible to do what she suggests.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister come to the defence of the public schools, which have made such a great contribution to our national life, particularly in terms of leadership which is, at present, needed in all walks of life?

Miss Jackson: No, Sir, I will not come to the defence of our public schools.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my Friend aware that the Charity Commisisoners, giving evidence to the Select Committee a few years ago, said that it was not right for charitable purposes to be applied to those areas where the State provided? They used roads as an example. Will she discuss with the Charity Commissioners those schools which have such a narrow intake from such a narrow band of society to see whether they are properly charitable in terms of the criteria that the Commissioners set out for the Select Committee?

Miss Jackson: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I will certainly pursue that point.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Will the Minister confirm that nothing will be done to damage these excellent establishments in view of the fact that their facilities are so widely used by prominent Socialists in our society?

Miss Jackson: I know of no prominent Socialist who uses the facilities to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is not a matter of whether the schools would be damaged. It is a matter of whether they should be subsidised by the State.

Mr. Carlisle: Further to the matter put by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), does not the Minister realise that the present Labour Government have been the best recruiting sergeant that the independent sector of education has ever had? Will she confirm that any attempt to remove the private sector of education would cost the taxpayers £150 million in additional teaching costs alone, and would also be contrary to the United Nations and the European Declarations of Human Rights?

Miss Jackson: I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that overall numbers

in independent schools are still falling. I must also tell him, as I have informed his hon. Friend, that we are discussing whether the State should subsidise people who wish to send their children to public schools. I believe that we should not.

School Transport

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is yet ready to introduce in the House proposals for reforming the present system for the provision of free school transport.

Miss Margaret Jackson: No, Sir. The administrative and financial implications of possible alternatives are still being examined.

Mr. Miller: In view of the widespread concern throughout the country about these anomalies, will not the Minister at least give some indication of the lines along which a possible solution might be found?

Miss Jackson: I think I have told the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions that the best and most likely workable solution lies with some form of flat-rate arrangement. He is correct to refer to widespread concern. Unfortunately, that concern does not express itself in agreed views.

Mr. Sydney Irving: Will my hon. Friend accept that the present system places a heavy burden on families, particularly when they have children in secondary schools who have just under three miles to travel and primary school children with just under two miles to travel? Will she renew her efforts to obtain some settlement between local authorities and the Government to give some relief to those families?

Miss Jackson: I am aware of this problem. We are trying to find a solution with the utmost speed.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The Minister could alleviate the situation almost immediaately if she would change the mileage rule to take account of the distance that the bus actually has to travel rather than the simple crow's flight distance which is now the regulation.

Miss Jackson: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would cope


with all the cases brought to me, particularly in areas where there are no subsidised fares for children and where families face a heavy burden of expenditure.

Mr. Cryer: I know that my hon. Friend is keen to see a new system introduced. Does she agree that many Tory local authorities, such as Bradford, have introduced harsh new alterations to the existing rule which have caused great hardship? Will she draw the attention of the Treasury to the recent Government expenditure paper which demonstrates a £2 billion shortfall in spending for the current year? Could not some of that money be used to provide a national service for transport which would be a great improvement on the existing situation?

Miss Jackson: I accept that the fact that many local authorities have ceased to use their discretionary powers has caused problems. As for drawing things to the attention of the Treasury, my hon. Friend is so effective in pursuing that activity that I would hardly dare to compete with him.

General Teaching Council

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she is making with her plans to establish a General Teaching Council.

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend has always taken the view that initiatives towards a teachers' professional council must come from the teachers themselves. She is very ready to consider, in consultation with other interests, any agreed proposals which the teachers' organisations may put forward.

Mr. Newton: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not time for Ministers to proceed with a greater sense of urgency? Would not the creation of an effective professional body be a real help in resolving some of the difficult issues now facing teachers, such as the problems of redundancy and early retirement?

Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—it could be a help. The difficulty is that there are substantial differences of view between the teachers' organisations. My right hon. Friend could not impose a solution on the teachers. Any such body must grow from what the profession, as a whole, wants. I wish they could make up their minds.

Research (Safety Provisions)

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with safety provisions applying to research funded by the research councils; and what guidance she is proposing to give on this matter.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On 22 January I met representatives of the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils and the chairman of the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group to consider this matter. The councils have stringent procedures for handling dangerous pathogens and other biologically hazardous material in their establishment and are reviewing them in the light of the Shooter report. The chairman of the University Grants Committee has sent copies of the report to all university vice-chancellors asking them to do the same.

Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend, in the light of that reply, appoint trade union representatives to the UGC? This would ensure that safety was examined. It would also widen the membership of that body away from narrow professional parameters.

Mrs. Williams: Members of the University Grants Committee are appointed on a personal basis, not as representatives of bodies. Trade unionists can be considered for membership. I would like to assure my hon. Friend, on the basis of his question, that the most urgent steps have been taken by the research councils. We have asked the universities through the UGC to take urgent steps to assure themselves of the safety of all laboratories in that sector dealing with dangerous pathogens.

Mr. Pavitt: I appreciate the urgent steps taken by my right hon. Friend, but will she take into account the importance of not restricting the research in some of these important areas? Providing that safety is guaranteed and safeguarded, a great deal of research is needed for the prevention of illness.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend has, as usual, pointed to the central problem that we face. On the one side we must assure the safety of the public. On the other hand, we do not want to inhibit experiments and work that might usefully


lead to major advances in medical research. I am satisfied that the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council are in complete control of their laboratories and the work going on in them. I would not want, granted that to inhibit this important and useful work.

Open University (Local Authority Grants)

Mr. Arthur Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people over the age of state retirement have been able to obtain local authority education grants to undertake Open university courses.

Mr. Oakes: My Department does not collect this information.

Mr. Latham: Will the Department consider my proposition that education provided for non-vocational purposes is likely to be the most worth while of all? Is it not sad that many people in retirement are bored? Would it not be a splendid way to spend their time to pursue a course of study to enrich their lives? Will the Department accept that one is never too old to learn and join me in a campaign to encourage old people to take up opportunities that many of them may have missed earlier in their lives?

Mr. Oakes: I agree. The Open university, one of the finest achievements of the last Labour Government, is open to all, including the elderly. Many of those elderly people left school not at 14 years of age but at 12 or 13 years of age. Society owes them the opportunity to pursue their leisure activities on Open university courses.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister correct to say that the Open university is open to all? Does he agree that far too many people who are taking courses at the Open university are teachers rather than those who missed the opportunity of higher education when they left school? Will he bring pressure to bear upon the Secretary of State to see whether a system can be worked out whereby those who are prepared to study in their own time are paid a limited grant by their local authorities? Is he aware that that is not possible at present because local authorities have insufficient funds to grant such mandatory awards?

Mr. Oakes: Most courses at the Open university qualify for discretionary awards, not mandatory awards. Many teachers are pursuing courses which are valuable to them. I would not wish to restrict any section of the community from pursuing such courses.

Secondary Education (Retford)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Retford, Nottinghamshire.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend is now considering the Nottinghamshire county council's proposal and expects to announce her decision shortly When she has reached that decision, I shall inform my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that for two years the Tory county council has deliberately been playing politics with this scheme? Does she agree that this must end? Over £100,000 of public money has already been spent and the delay has caused chronic job insecurity among teachers and two extra years on the 11-plus scheme. Is she aware that the older people in the area are fed up with the delay? Will she put pressure on the county council to implement the original policy?

Miss Jackson: I accept that delay is undesirable, but my hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision.

"Higher Education into the 1990s"

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the consultative document "Higher Education into the 1990s"; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My Department and the Scottish Education Department between them have received nearly 300 responses to the discussion document. I have been examining the overall tenor of this very encouraging response in the light of the most recent information about student enrolments and I have accepted an invitation to speak at a conference being organised by The Times Higher Education Supplement, on 5 March about the development of higher education in the next decade or so.

Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in many education circles because the document appears to place more emphasis on demographic principles than on education principles? Does she agree that the projected decrease in population should not be used as an excuse for a contraction in the system but that it presents a golden opportunity for an expansion of the system by extending the opportunity for higher education to a larger proportion of the community?

Mrs. Williams: The document dealt with the demographic problems. My hon. Friend will recognise that in model E, which is supported by Ministers, we have clearly indicated our belief that there is an opportunity for a major expansion of adult education, paid educational leave and part-time study in our higher education institutions.
Many higher education institutions have not yet taken on board that there will be necessary changes if that is to happen. That is one matter that we wish to discuss in detail at the forthcoming conference.

Mr. Nelson: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the projected provision for higher education in the report assumes that the number of 18-year-olds who will be seeking education at universities or polytechnics will increase from about 13 per cent to 18 per cent.—an increase of 5 per cent? Has the Secretary of State seen the representations from many bodies which believe that that proportion is overoptimistic? Does she agree with those representations? If they were proved to be correct, will she review her provision for higher education places?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member is correct. The assumption is based on a related age participation rate in higher education of about 18 per cent. In the last two years the figure has not been so impressive. There are some reasons to think that the figure is increasing again.
We should have to reconsider the proportion of 18-year-olds entering higher education, but we should still hope that the gap that that would leave would be made good by more adult and mature students entering higher education.

Mr. Grocott: This is the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the polytechnics. Does my right hon. Friend agree

that one of the real problems in higher education, which the polytechnics have illustrated, is the overwhelming tendency to concentrate resources on three-year undergraduate courses at the expense of day and block release courses? What steps does she intend to take to ensure that that trend is changed?

Mrs. Williams: In the Education Bill, which is now in Committee, consideration is being given to a clause to extend mandatory awards to new areas outside the formal undergraduate group. My hon. Friend also mentioned 16 to 18-year-olds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have announced our intention to issue a White Paper in the spring on the whole question of day and block release courses for 16 to 18-year-olds. That matter is being urgently considered.

Mr. Carlisle: I accept that the next few years will represent a period of consolidation rather than expansion in universities, but what thought has the Secretary of State given to the extension of sandwich courses, particularly at the polytechnics?

Mrs. Williams: I share the hon. and learned Member's concern about sandwich courses. Last year the Government gave additional help to employers to enable them to offer sandwich places. The perpetual problem is that not as many sandwich places are offered as it is possible to take up. I join the hon. and learned Member in saying that it would be helpful if employers more readily came forward with sandwich courses, especially since they often criticise graduates for not having enough knowledge of the world of industry.

Syllabuses

Mr. Banks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied that the current syllabus of teaching in schools prepares pupils adequately for the learning of a skill in adult life.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: There is no national syllabus of teaching in schools, but the importance of preparing pupils for working life is being increasingly recognised. The Green Paper "Education in Schools" stressed the importance of the basic skills of numeracy and literacy, and authorities have been asked in my


Department's subsequent circular 14/77 to report on steps taken to promote these. Emphasis is being placed on school—industry liaison and curricular developments in mathematics and science. I have recently appointed a committee of inquiry under Dr. Cockcroft into the teaching of mathematics in schools.

Mr. Banks: Does the Secretary of State agree that the trend under this Government reveals a growing number of unfilled vacancies for skilled motor mechanics and engineers, for example, even when there are about 1½ million unemployed? Does she agree that the best foundation for learning, or wanting to learn a skill, is the quality of the teaching? What steps will she take to ensure that teaching is improved?

Mrs. Williams: I cannot agree. There has been a dramatic increase in the last three years in the number of young people seeking courses in engineering and technology in higher education. This has been the most dramatic increase for many years.
I believe strongly that we must try to move forward on the basis of the proposals made by some of the training boards for starting vocational courses in the last two years at school. I hope that that will lead to full-time further education for youngsters studying for qualifications in skills.

Miss Maynard: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we should be trying to help all pupils to develop their potential to the full and not training them to pass examinations, to run a complicated society or to obtain knowledge about a skill? Does she agree that our job is to give them the opportunity to develop their potential? Is not that what education should he about?

Mrs. Williams: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. She may know that in our Green Paper we said clearly that children should be taught what it is to live in an industrial society, in a democracy and in a multi-racial society. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that many boys and girls are motivated in the last year or so of schooling by the opportunity to study vocational work and skills. We certainly do not wish to stand in the way of their having the opportunity to do that.

Sir William Elliott: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that there are those of us in the House from such areas as mine, the Northern area, who for years have said that there is, masking a high unemployment rate, a great shortage of skill? In consequence, we have been advocating that the last two years of the school curriculum should be much more geared to industrial requirements and skills.

Mrs. Williams: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should not wish to gear the last two years only to industrial requirements. However, boys and girls should have the opportunity to start on a process that leads to qualifications for skills in those years if they wish to do so. One of the aims of setting up the inquiry into mathematics, to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), was precisely that mathematics should be devoted to the mathematics of everyday industrial life as well as to the more abstract requirements that are demanded, for example, by A-level courses.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good basic education of broad character in the earlier years is one of the finest preparations for future life? Does she agree that we must guard against too early specialisation and against using education to fill slots in unemployment on a narrow basis, which could be interpreted as the view of some hon. Members?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is right, in the sense that a broad education is much the best thing that we can give children in a rapidly changing technological society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking a supplementary question that enables me further to clarify my argument. Where boys and girls in their last year at school would benefit from some secondment to, for example, a further education college, the schools and colleges should work together to make that possible. As we all know, there are boys and girls of great ability who find the more academic type of course not attractive to them.

Language Tuition

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the extent and quantity of language tuition in schools.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The Green Paper "Education in Schools" drew attention to the key importance of language skills. My Department's subsequent circular 14/77 on authorities' curricula arrangements invited them to indicate their policies to promote the development of English and modern languages in schools. When the results of this review are available these issues will be the subject of further consultations.

Mr. Arnold: Is the hon. Lady satisfied with the scope and extent of the proposals that have been put forward by the European Commission for the development of a Community programme? Is not the Commission's programme somewhat timid? Could not a great deal more be done by way of developing teacher exchanges, a programme of assistantes and similar methods?

Miss Jackson: The European programme makes a useful contribution. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that we would not wish to rest only on what is being proposed by the Commission. We intend to examine our own proposals.

Mr. Newens: Has consideration been given at any stage to the experimental introduction of the teaching of Esperanto into certain schools? Is she aware that, where that has been taught, it has greatly increased the keenness of pupils to learn other languages as they find that they can achieve success in languages?

Miss Jackson: Some authorities have tried that experiment. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that it is for authorities rather than my Department to undertake experiments in curricula development.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on modern languages in secondary schools states that the results are in no way commensurate with the physical and human resources involved? Is she aware that only one in 10 pupils starting languages in our secondary schools achieve O-level or CSE grade 1 passes? As we have entered the Common Market, is not that bad?

Miss Jackson: It is bad whether or not it has anything to do with the Common Market. We recognise the defects of

modern language teaching in our schools, as we all must. We must try to correct the defects.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the schools are more successful in equipping their pupils with skills in language and other necessary activities than ever before? Although it is unfashionable to express that view and although that is not the view purveyed by Opposition Members or the media, does she agree that our schools are achieving a great deal more than that for which they are given credit?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is correct. Better opportunities are being offered to more children than ever before. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the opportunities and the successes that they bring are still not as great as we would wish.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Minister aware of the family learning system that is being pioneered by the Institute of European Education at St. Martin's training college, Lancaster, which can make a valuable contribution to language learning? Will she encourage its extension to other parts?

Miss Jackson: We are aware of the project, which we find interesting. We wish to study it to ascertain whether it may usefully be extended as the hon. Lady suggests.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Hunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman be taking the opportunity today to clear up the confusion that has been created in local government circles and within his Cabinet following his ambiguous remarks at the weekend on local authority pay settlements? Has he seen that Mr. Alan Fisher has already interpreted that speech as giving the green light for settlements up to 14 per cent


Is that so? If not, will he repudiate Mr. Fisher and give a firm pledge of his full support to local authority employers who will be standing firm against unreasonable and inflationary demands of that sort in the interests of their ratepayers?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me about that. I am sorry if my remarks on Saturday led to any confusion. They were intended to be a clarification on a firm basis. It is not the first time that that sort of thing has gone adrift. I said and meant that the Government have told the employers that they are prepared to finance their share of an offer of 8·8 per cent. through the rate support grant. I wish the House to know exactly what was in my mind when I went a little further. As an old negotiator I know that sometimes—[Interruption.] Hold it. We are talking about serious matters. I know that another 0·1 per cent. or 0·2 per cent. may bring a settlement that otherwise would not be achieved. A margin is needed at the negotiating edge. That is what I meant. Unfortunately, that is not what was interpreted. Some seemed to think that the sky was the limit. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of making that clear.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that events now would seem like a holiday compared with what would occur if the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and her friends inside and outside the House took over? Will he acknowledge that low-paid public service workers started a campaign months ago, held meetings, demonstrations, marches and even a lobby of Parliament? Does he agree that it appears that meaningful notice was not taken until they went on strike? Is not that a sad state of affairs? Cannot we have some early warning system and cannot notice be taken of these issues long before matters come to a head?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend foreshortens history a little. He will remember that I said at the Labour Party conference that, in view of what had been said at conference and elsewhere, there was a case for reviewing the special position of the low-paid. It was in January, long before there was action, that the Government came forward and said that they thought that there should

be a special position for the low-paid. The main element of that was an underpinning, which could be consolidated both into the bonus and overtime rates, of £3·50. It is not right to say that we waited for industrial action before an improvement was made. It is that that helps to make up the 8·8 per cent. to which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) referred.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The Prime Minister was reported as saying in his speech on Saturday that no one should be reluctant to put forward new ideas or even ones that had been considered previously and rejected. When he said that, did he have in mind Cmnd. 3888 entitled "In Place of Strife". If not, what did he have in mind?

The Prime Minister: I did not have a particular Command Paper in mind. There are a number of ideas that have been discussed in the past and rejected that in view of the present situation may be revived. At present we are engaged in some useful talks with the trade unions. It is important that they should have the opportunity of commenting on some of the ideas. Let us see what emerges from that. I am not without some hopes of advance.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister take time today to discuss with his colleagues the question of the by-election at Liverpool, Edge Hill, and its date? Does not he think it is time that the voters of Edge Hill had a democratic representative in this House, especially bearing in mind the serious economic problems facing that constituency? Now that the dirty tricks department of the Labour Party in Liverpool has failed so miserably there is no excuse for delaying the by-election any longer.

The Prime Minister: There is a convention in the House under which these matters are dealt with. I do not propose to depart from it.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Could my right hon. Friend, in spite of his current difficulties, spare time from his engagements today to plead for the life of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Bhutto? Does he not agree that it would be tragic indeed if Pakistan fell apart in civil war?

The Prime Minister: Sentence was passed on Mr. Bhutto in March. After my visit to Pakistan last January and in view of my personal relationship with General Zia, I had personal correspondence with him on this matter, which has since continued. Today I have officially made representations to General Zia—I am sure that he will understand why—that he should as an act of clemency spare the life of Mr. Bhutto. General Zia is a wise man. The consequences of clemency will be more beneficial to his country than carrying out the strict application of the law.

TUC

Mr. Gow: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I met representatives of the TUC yesterday and will meet them again tomorrow when I take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Gow: Has the Prime Minister yet discussed with the TUC the offer of support from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and from this side of the House for new laws and new practices to deal with picketing, the closed shop and secret ballots before strike action? If not, why not?

The Prime Minister: These issues are being discussed with the trade unions at present. However, there is a difference between us as to whether the law is the best method of handling this situation on these matters.
The hon. Gentleman referred to "practices". I assume he meant codes of practices as distinct from the law. There is a more fruitful avenue of advance. Certainly that is a matter for discussion between us.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the real issue at present is not about the strength of trade unions or picketing but rather the fact that a high percentage of people receive very low wages indeed? Is not the answer to this problem to give these people a realistic wage?

The Prime Minister: Both issues cause concern at the moment, especially the way in which members of trade unions are able to hold up the life of the community. That is a very serious matter. Secondly, there is public concern about the low pay of many public service and other workers. Hence the Government's offer to finance and increase the part of the contribution paid to the local authorities.
I conclude with the general statements that I have made on so many occasions. It will not advantage the low-paid workers in a free collective bargaining situation if those who are the strongest get the most.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will not the Prime Minister now accept that recent events have shown that codes of practice on picketing are just not enough? If he has not already done so, will he take time to read the recent speech of the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who pointed out that the law at the moment is not sufficient to protect the right of the worker to go about his ordinary business without interference, that it is virtually unenforceable without the presence of the police on every picket line—they cannot do that—and that sweeping changes in the law are needed?

The Prime Minister: I promise the right hon. Lady that if the country went down that road we should be in no better case than we are today. I was putting the matter at its lowest. I beg the right hon. Lady to consider very carefully before she calls for sweeping changes in the law. I agree with her that the trouble with some codes that have been published has been, not that they were deficient, but that they were not observed. The right hon. Lady runs the danger that she might bring the law into contempt if it is not observed.

Mrs. Thatcher: The danger that the country runs is that the Prime Minister will do nothing about the situation. Does he not realise that if the law is unenforceable he must change it so that it is easier for the police to enforce? The chief constable of Greater Manchester says that the law is virtually unenforceable at present.
The Prime Minister never hesitates to use the law to increase the power of the unions both against other people and over their own members. Why does he hesitate to use it to redress present-day grievances?

The Prime Minister: This argument will go on. I am glad that it will do so. I do not wish to see the country repeat the fatal mistake that was made with the legislation of 1971–72. Surely we have all learned from those experiences.
It is not enough to put the law on the statute book. We must make certain that there will be sufficient acquiescence not to bring the law into contempt. The better way to do this is the way that I intend to pursue. We must ensure, through the good sense of our fellow countrymen—I remind the Opposition that trade unionists are fellow countrymen, too—that they do not abuse the strength that they have through collective action but use that great strength with restraint. That is the better way and the more historic way for this country to proceed.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the crude attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to the trade unions would mean that the present situation would look like a vicar's tea party compared with what it would be if she were ever in office?

The Prime Minister: It is always my hope that any institution, and certainly the trade unions, will accept whatever laws are passed by Parliament. That having been stated as a principle, we know that there must be assent for these laws. I beg the Opposition to consider the past in these matters and try to find a voluntary way forward. That will be better for our country in the long run.

EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Prime Minister when he next hopes to discuss the European monetary system with his European Economic Community colleagues.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to discuss the European monetary system with Heads of Government of other European Economic Community countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I am glad to get a cheer from the Opposition.
But, if the European monetary system has not started by the time of the next meeting of the European Council in March, the issue may be raised then.

Mr. MacFarquhar: When my right hon. Friend next talks about the system with his colleagues, will he confirm the spirit of his remarks in the House on 6 December that Her Majesty's Government regret and take no pleasure in the fact that a system could not be devised for full British participation? In view of the decisions by the Irish and Italian Governments since then to change their minds on going in, will he undertake, if the system gets off the ground, to reconsider the British position?

The Prime Minister: We should always look at the question of the European monetary system against the best interests of our own country. It was because we felt it was not in the best interests of Britain that we did not enter the system. We felt that there must be other adjuncts to the system, namely, a greater convergence in the economies of the various countries and also in the monetary backing that is given to developing regions and elsewhere. Until these things are done, it is very unlikely that we shall be able to change our minds on whether it is worth while for this country to enter.

Mr. William Clark: As the Prime Minister will not find time to discuss the European monetary system, will he utilise his time in discussing urgently with the Trades Union Congress the ineffectiveness of the emergency service under the ambulance system—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even I cannot allow that.

MR. BHUTTO

Mr. David Steel: Mr. David Steel(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the rejection of his appeal against the death sentence by Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, he will recall Her Majesty's Ambassador in Islamabad for urgent consultations.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): The task of the ambassador is to remain in Islamabad to represent at this crucial stage the views of Her Majesty's Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just told the House, now that the Supreme Court


decision has been made and there is a provision for presidential clemency, the ambassador has today delivered a personal message from my right hon. Friend to President Zia. The Government hope that the President will find a way to temper justice with mercy.

Mr. Steel: Without commenting in any way on the verdict of the court or on Mr. Bhutto's record as President of Pakistan, will the Foreign Secretary make clear to the Government of Pakistan that the Prime Minister's representations on humanitarian grounds to the present Head of State for clemency towards his predecessor enjoy widespread support in the House?

Dr. Owen: I think they represent the balanced judgment of most people in this country, and I hope that they will be listened to in that respect.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call very few hon. Members on this matter. I will call one Back Bench Member and then the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend, through the ambassador, follow the lead of Mr. Ecevit and Mr. Palme and offer to General Zia the possibility of Mr. Bhutto coming to this country, as it is clear that the main threat to his life is the internal threat that General Zia believes he represents if he remains in Pakistan?

Dr. Owen: In keeping with the traditions of this country, we shall keep that in mind.

Mr. Pym: We on the Conservative Benches are in agreement with the representations to which the Prime Minister has referred—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and which we believe have widespread support in this House.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. This is a difficult question of judgment, as I am sure everyone will agree. On balance, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the right decision is being taken.

Later—

Mr. Dudley Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way seeking to question your decision in relation to the private notice question about Pakistan and the events there, I wonder whether you might reconsider your decision to call hardly any supplementary questions in connection with the future of Mr. Bhutto. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are admirers of Pakistan, who know Mr. Bhutto and who would like to give adequate expression of opinion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we cannot go back to that. The House has given me a discretion in these matters, and to the best of my ability I exercised it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not take any further points of order about Mr. Bhutto or about my ruling on that question.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Mr. Teddy Taylor(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions yesterday with unions representing public service employees in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I met senior representatives from Scotland of the four unions concerned with pay negotiations for local government manual workers and health service ancillaries and ambulance men in London on Monday 5 February. We discussed the present stage of pay negotiations for these services. We also discussed the Government's guidelines on pay, including the proposals for "underpinning" for lower paid workers and for comparability studies.
Following an earlier approach from me to discuss these matters, three of the four unions concerned had decided last week that they would suspend strike action for the time being. The other union, the National Union of Public Employees, decided to put into operation a programme of industrial action. At yesterday's meeting the unions confirmed their previous positions in this respect, but said that they would be reconsidering the whole question on Saturday of this week.
In the meantime, as the House knows, limited industrial action is taking place in both the Health Service and local government service in Scotland, some of it with union approval and some against the advice of the unions concerned.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State agree that, while we have been relatively fortunate in Scotland, in that disruption of our public services has been limited and sporadic, there is now a real danger of a major disruption if no settlement is reached this week? Will the Secretary of State confirm the remarks attributed to the union representatives that extended action might well commence as from 12 February if no deal is struck?
Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, in the unhappy event of disruptive action taking place, clear advice will be given by him that all possible steps should be taken to keep schools going, even if it means picket

lines being crossed, particularly as the Scottish schoolchildren have already lost a good deal of education because of the vehicle drivers' strike and the adverse weather conditions?
Will there also be clear advice given that hospital services should be maintained and that volunteers should be used if required?
Are any contingency plans available to deal with any health hazards arising out of disruption in the sewerage service?
Will the Secretary of State clarify the remarks attributed to him in the Scottish press this morning that
the Government has made its position clear in financing settlements beyond 10 per cent. and that any further increases will have to be paid for out of the rates or a reduction in services"?
Does this represent the policy of the Government? Is the Secretary of State aware that there is not a great deal of clarity as to the figure that the Government are adopting? For the guidance of the unions, the ratepayers and the local authorities, will he say whether the figure is 10 per cent., 8·8 per cent., or what the figure is? I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify the Government's position on the wage negotiations.

Mr. Millan: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the industrial action has been to a limited extent in Scotland as compared with England. I am thankful that that is so. But I regret industrial action of any sort in these essential services. If the position were to get worse, naturally I would consider what advice I could offer in a more general way. But, in the meantime, for example, with the Health Service, I have asked local hospitals, and other people who are having difficulty, to try to sort out these difficulties at local level. I am keeping a watch on the position and if there is need for further action from me I shall take it. Certain plans have already been drawn up in case contingency arrangements are required.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question concerning the level of settlements a few minutes ago, and I do not think there is anything I need add to that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend amplify the discussions that he had concerning the comparability study


which has been offered as part of a package deal? Will he tell us how this has been developed, when it is likely to begin, in what circumstances, and who will carry out the comparability study?

Mr. Milian: I do not think that I can answer some of these questions with precision at the moment because they depend on the unions and employers concerned reaching agreement. But, on the National Health Service, I can say that there is virtual agreement between the management and the unions about terms of reference and the other matters mentioned by my hon. Friend.
There is to be a meeting tomorrow about local authority services. I think that, in principle, comparability studies have been accepted by each side, employers and unions, but the detailed terms of reference and the mechanics of carrying out the comparability study and implementing the results of it are matters for discussion. I imagine that they will be discussed in detail tomorrow. The Government are very anxious to encourage comparability studies.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Secretary of State accept that he has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on the level of financing that the Government will approve? Will he say categorically whether he indicated to the trade union officials whom he met yesterday that the Government would not be prepared to finance any settlements beyond 10 per cent., as attributed to him in this morning's press, that being quite contrary to the indication made by the Prime Minister today?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that anything I said yesterday contradicted what the Prime Minister said on Saturday or today. As the Prime Minister made clear on each occasion, the Government are looking for single figure settlements.

Mr. William Hamilton: With specific reference to the nurses' salary claim, will my right hon. Friend make clear whether he intends to have or is having separate discussions with the Royal College of Nursing, as distinct from unions such as NUPE and the Confederation of Health Service Employees?

Mr. Millan: I am not having discussions at the moment. My hon. Friend knows that the settlement date for nurses is 1 April, and negotiations will take place in good time before that. There are certain claims which the nurses have outstanding from the previous round of negotiations, but these are not under active discussion at the moment. My hon. Friend will also recollect that, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his original statement about comparability studies, he mentioned nurses specifically as a possibility for a group of employees who might be covered by a comparability study. But these are matters for further negotiation. It is not a question of the Government introducing comparability studies off their own hand. Both the unions and employers concerned must want the studies to take place.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very severe disruption that occurred last week, for example, at Ninewells hospital, in Dundee, and the very severe burden that this put upon medical staff? What will he advise health boards to do in the event of further disruption in relation to offers of voluntary help?

Mr. Millan: One would have to deal with that on an ad hoc basis. Some of the action that took place at Ninewells was against the advice of the unions concerned. When the action was drawn to my attention, I asked the area health board to have discussions the following morning—which it did—with the local officers of the unions concerned. Arising from those discussions, certain arrangements were made, which have been implemented as from yesterday, to reduce considerably the disruption at Ninewells hospital. I believe that at present it is far better to deal with these matters on an ad hoc basis and at local level.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing.

Mr. Monro: In the light of the Government's non-existent policies over recent weeks, can the Secretary of State assure us that contingency plans are ready now to deal with further developments in the Health Service and the local authority


service, particularly with regard to water and sewerage over the next fortnight?

Mr. Millan: As I have already said, there are contingency plans for essential services. But I hope very much that the action in Scotland will be limited. In fact, I hope that in relation to these essential services there will be no industrial action at all. But where this has already taken place, as it has with regard to the water service in Ayrshire, we are holding the position. However, there is further action that I can take if it is found to he necessary.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I return to the unanswered question. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically whether the Government are prepared to finance settlements above 8·8 per cent.?

Mr. Millan: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. The answer is "Yes, within a negotiating margin"—as my right hon. Friend said. I have nothing to add to what he said.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: That was the point on which I wanted to press the Secretary of State. He has still not made it clear whether the Government are prepared to finance above 8·8 per cent. or 10 per cent.

Mr. Millan: I ask the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a little slow on the uptake, to look at Hansard tomorrow, because he will see that the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear.

WATER INDUSTRY (PAY)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I wish to make a statement about pay negotiations for manual workers in the water industry. The House may recall that on 19 January the water industry employers made a revised offer for manual workers, representing an increase in earnings of 13·9 per cent., of which a substantial element —6·9 per cent.—related to a new productivity agreement. After lengthy negotiation, the trade union side of the National Joint Industrial Council agreed to recommend acceptance to its relevant decision-making bodies. That offer was not, in the event, accepted by union members and negotiations resumed on 2 February.
In the early hours of this morning, I learned that after long discussions the National Joint Industrial Council had not found it possible to reach a pay settlement for the manual workers. The offer —representing an increase in earnings of 15·88 per cent.—made by the employers was not acceptable to the union negotiators as a basis for a pay agreement. This offer is worth an increase in average weekly earnings of £9·81 a week immediately rising to £12·70 from 1 April 1979. This is a major setback and disappointment with potentially very serious implications for industrial relations and for the British economy. I have, therefore, thought it right to request those concerned to reflect further, and to consider whether in the national interest negotiations should be resumed. The House will understand that I can say little further at this stage.

Mr. Heseltine: The House will not understand why the Secretary of State does not say a considerable number of other things at this stage.
First, the House wants to know what arrangements the Secretary of State has made to ensure that the water and sewerage facilities of this country are kept running. The right hon. Gentleman should also explain how on 19 January the unions were able to recommend an average settlement of 13·9 per cent., whereas a fortnight later they were unable to express any opinion upon a settlement of 15·88 per cent.

Mr. Corbett: It is called democracy.

Mr. Heseltine: Is a possible explanation for the unwillingness to recommend the higher settlement the Prime Minister's speech at the weekend in which, by design or carelessness, he added a licence of 2 per cent. on all negotiations in the public sector? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that any settlement that is agreed in this industry, with the unions involved, will have clear implications for all other union negotiators who are now negotiating in the public sector?

Mr. Shore: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was particularly helpful in putting his questions, but I shall attempt to answer them.
Of course, we must accept the responsibility of making all possible arrangements to keep vital community services running. Those arrangements have long been in our consideration and are in hand. The hon. Gentleman asks how it is that the union side first recommended the offer which was subsequently rejected by its members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) said succinctly, the unions have democratic procedures. They put their recommendations to their members, but from time to time those recommendations are not accepted. That is what happened in this case.
With regard to the Prime Minister's speech, that has been nothing but helpful in the general context of negotiations. But, of course, we have it in mind that settlements in one part of the public sector have implications for settlements elsewhere. That is a serious matter which we have constantly borne in mind.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Secretary of State give some indication about the arrangements to which he has just referred? For example, will he assure us that there will not be the flapping about that occurred a fortnight ago when my local authority experienced this problem? What arrangements have the Government made to deal with the emergency? All that has been said so far is that arrangements are in hand. What are they?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication what a declined offer of 15·9 per cent. will mean to the water rates of this country? What proportion of average water rates are attributed to labour costs? Therefore, if a

15·9 per cent. offer has already been declined, what will that mean in relation to increased water charges over the next 12 months?
Finally, if 15·9 per cent. is not acceptable in the water industry, what chance is there of local authority workers accepting 8·9 per cent.?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman's last question is relevant. The water industry, like certain other of our publicly owned industries as distinct from services, has opportunities for productivity arrangements that are greater than in local government and central Government services. As I explained to the House, a substantial component of that figure is attributed to a productivity deal.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's first concern. He has been in an area in the North-West where there was unofficial action that rumbled on and to some extent still does. As he well knows, various ad hoc arrangements were made, including standpipes, switching of water supplies and management personnel and others undertaking work normally done by the men on strike. But we were dealing mainly with unmended bursts. Quite frankly, we had to judge the scale of those before deciding whether further action was needed. We decided that it was not.
On the labour content of the total cost, water is a capital intensive industry. I would need notice of that question before I could give the precise additional cost that would be attributed to increases in pay claims.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is never a straightforward 15 per cent. increase? The matter is much more complicated. What is being paid now is not new money but the consolidation of money that is already available. Should it not be explained to the country that the workers are asking for the consolidation to become available from two months past and not from 1 April? We must understand the problem and explain it instead of talking nonsense about 15 per cent.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has considerable understanding of trade union negotiations. In judging any settlement, it is right to look carefully at its components. They are often not as simple


as many people may believe. Nevertheless, at the end of the day one must aggregate the total increase that arises from whatever changes and arrangements are made. We must therefore look at the total figure.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Secretary of State has said that the present unofficial dispute in the North-West is still rumbling on. Can he say what divisions of the North-West water board are at present having trouble, and what parts of those divisions? Can he also say whether the dispute has been merged in the general dispute, or does it still have a life of its own?

Mr. Shore: As the House will recall, the area most affected in the North-West was the Pennine division. I am glad to say that that unofficial dispute has been settled. The backlog of work, which at its peak resulted in over 1,000 homes being deprived of piped water, has been cleared. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not catalogue all the subdivisions within the North-West region, but the southern and central divisions—the Ribble—have been affected. It is a changing situation and some improvement has been reported over the past week.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Haseltine) attacks what is to him a large settlement it shows the hollowness of the Tories' claim to support free collective bargaining on behalf of all working people? Immediately there is an increase of this kind ready to be paid, the Tories turn their attention to who will pay the rates and what a burden it will be. Does it therefore not help my right hon. Friend to understand that, as the battle continues and the problems are solved, the Governmbent can emerge as victors only by being consistent with those of us on the Labour Benches who at all times represent the people who put us in Parliament? They should take little or no notice of that gang of hypocrites opposite.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right about the Conservatives' attitude to free collective bargaining. It is deeply contradictory. I hope that my position on it has been consistent. I believe that there is a common will in the country to defeat in-

flation. If unrestricted collective bargaining stokes inflation, we have a problem. We must adjust and arrange matters within the trade union movement and the policies of the Government to prevent inflation from getting out of hand.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this is a truncated Supply day. I am prepared to call more hon. Members, but there is a Ten-Minute Bill before we get to the main business.

Mr. Molloy: I put it to my right hon. Friend that these statements on the difficulties in any form of public employment are meaningless. How can we accept the theory of the Conservative Party that people in public employment should have an increase in their wages and salaries but that it should not come out of rates and there should be no Government subsidy? Will he ask them what the hell they mean by that sort of ridiculous attitude?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not let the standard of our language fall below parliamentary level.

Mr. Molloy: I wish to apologise to the House for that lapsus linguae and, if I may, withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member, despite his name, is Welsh, and I understand why he slipped.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the offer of 15·9 per cent. was inside the Government's 5 per cent. pay limit? Can he say whether it is possible to increase that 15·9 per cent. and still remain within the Government's 5 per cent. pay limit?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening with his customary attention. I said that the productivity element within the scheme is 6·9 per cent. He is as able as I to subtract, and that means that the residual figure is within single figures.

Mr. Aitken: As the Secretary of State appeared to be praising the democratic processes of this group of workers, will he take his approval one stage further and assure the House that, before this vital industry goes on strike, he will use his influence to make sure that its workers have a proper ballot?

Mr. Shore: At least one of the unions, and possibly two, as a matter of practice has a ballot. But the way in which unions consult their members is a matter for them.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not extraordinary that the Secretary of State could not answer the question of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) about the effect on the rates? Is it not his clear duty to confront the negotiators with the effect on both the rates and the level of capital investment?

Mr. Shore: Clearly it is a matter which everyone should have in mind. It is an important factor. However, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) that in this industry the effects, although of some importance, must be measured against the fact that it is a very heavily capital intensive industry.

Mr. Heseltine: Is it not apparent that the Secretary of State did not have it in mind at all, because he patently did not know what element of the cost labour represents in the water industry? If it helps him, may I say that it is 20 per cent.

Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Member, but presumably he is giving a national figure. The figures vary from region to region.

Later—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a prepared statement to the House in which he displays a lamentable lack of knowledge of the seriousness of the water supply situation in Lancashire? [Interruption.] A call to the Warrington office at 2.15 p.m. could have given him the exact facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I very much deplore the repeated occasions on which, when the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) speaks, there are people who make offensive noises. Those people would not like it for members of their own family.

EARLY-DAY MOTION 213

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about an amendment to early-day motion 213 that has appeared on the Order Paper today in the name of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). I have given the hon. Member notice that I intended to raise this matter as a point of order.
Early-day motion 213 stands on the Order Paper in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member has put down an amendment which goes far beyond the normal wording that we expect in this House in political debate. It is little less than an accusation of untruthfulness. The wording used by the hon. Member is:
but noting that this has not happened".
That clearly indicates to me that the matters of fact which are included in the motion are considered by the hon. Member to be a figment of my imagination. He does not state what the word "this" refers to—whether it is the fact that the people concerned stayed at work, the fact that there was national ballot, the fact that there was a vote of 59 to 6, or the fact that the people concerned had their photographs taken.
I submit that the hon. Member's amendment, couched in these terms, is an abuse of the Order Paper and as such is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. This allegation of dishonesty refers not just to me but to the other Members of the Conservative Party and the one Liberal Member who have signed the motion. As evidence of the veracity of the content of the motion, I have here a letter sent by the mother of the chapel—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House takes the hon. Member's word about the veracity of his statement, but it is an old-established cutom that in this House we have from time to time different facts in motions on the Order Paper. As a result, we get amendments to leave out certain words and substitute the opposite. That is a common experience. If I were to rule that these words were unparliamentary, I fear that I would be affecting the whole procedure of our early-day motions and the amendments to them. I would also be affecting the


ordinary processes of debate. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Member any further.

Mr. Corbett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make clear that I intended only to be of service to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) in correcting a factual error?

Mr. Rost: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you stated that it is quite usual for early-day motions to be amended by reversing the whole sense of them, and by deleting virtually the whole motion and putting another in its place, surely that is done only when the motion is a statement of opinion. It is not done when the motion represents a statement of fact. Will you reconsider the comments that you made, in the light of that suggestion?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I am quite prepared at any time to look at points that hon. Members raise if they feel that they have a sense of grievance. But I do not want to mislead the hon. Member. I believe that there is nothing that I can do on grounds of order.

Mr. Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We object to the use of the words
but noting that this has not happened.
When one is dealing with matters of specific fact and events which have been well documented, it is a very different matter from dealing with political arguments. Would you look at this again and see whether there is a borderline which is sometimes crossed?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I shall look at anything that any hon. Member asks me to examine, but we regularly have amendments that contradict outright the facts in the proposition. However, I will look at it again.

Mr. Corbett: If, in looking at the point that the hon. Member has raised, you feel that I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call on me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member need not hang around the premises on that basis.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Ordered,

That the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978, No. 1939) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Bryan Davies.]

EARLY-DAY MOTION 223

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to early-day motion 223 on today's Order Paper which seeks to have the hon. Sir Desmond Ackner removed from his place as justice of the High Court? I have had occasion to draw attention to this matter before, but it seems that some hon. Members, whenever a judgment is given in a court of law which they personally find unhappy, are inclined to put down a substantive motion criticising the judge. That seems to be entirely wrong.
I am certain that the reason why the motion appears on the Order Paper—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go into the reasons for the motion being on the Order Paper. It is not for the Speaker of this House to take away a right that has belonged to hon. Members for centuries. It is the constitutional way by which we avoid having clashes with the law. We follow our own process.

Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We carefully refrain from criticising the decision of the judiciary. If every time a decision by a judge in the matter of granting an injunction of a picket line or something of that sort is recorded this House is immediately able to record, in the form of a motion, a criticism of that member of the judiciary, the very purpose whereby we do not criticise the judiciary is ill served. This is a serious matter which should not be dismissed simply by saying that it is the standard procedure for criticising a judge. It may well be. But hon. Members are not here criticising the judge; they are criticising the law which he has interpreted.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue it, I recommend that he puts a motion on the Order Paper and tries to get it


debated in the House. This is not a matter for me to rule on.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I was hoping that we could move on to the Ten-Minute Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I shall be very brief. Can you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the points of order raised by Conservative Members have been attempts to curb and deny freedoms that have existed for Members of Parliament, and they call themselves—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is attributing motives. Both sides of the House have tried to do that this afternoon. As far as I am concerned, the motives of everyone in this House are above question.

PICKETING

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the law on picketing; and for connected purposes.
Hon. Members will have observed that the motion refers to a Bill not to change the law on picketing but to clarify the law as it exists. I know I am treading on lawyers' ground, but I am not intimidated by that. The law says that peaceful persuasion is lawful, that obstruction of people or vehicles is unlawful, that large numbers intimidate—I use the word there in its normal sense of illegal force —and that picketing is lawful in pursuit of a trade dispute but not remote from that dispute.
So far, I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House are agreed. As for remoteness, the Attorney-General yesterday took the trouble to write to the editor of The Daily Telegraph, no less, to explain that remoteness in this context is not a novel concept but was known certainly in 1976, when the last Act on the subject was passed. But although the principles as I have stated them and as Ministers have stated them are clear, there are some doubts particularly about the definition of numbers and of remoteness. In recent weeks these doubts have been exploited and used to damage both the Government and British industry. I believe that these doubts should be removed by statute, and this is the purpose, and the whole purpose, of my Bill.
I do not want to try to persuade the House that any particular size of picket line constitutes intimidation by numbers, nor to press for a particular definition of "remote" in this context. Those matters can be discussed in detail on Second Reading, if I am given leave to introduce the Bill, and in Committee. I hope that it is not necessary for hon. Members opposite to agree with me absolutely on these points at this stage for them to support the view that this House should settle these points of definition and should clarify the law. I repeat: this is the sole purpose of my Bill today.
We owe it to the courts to carry such a Bill to protect them from the disgraceful and politically motivated attacks that


have been made upon them, such as that made last week by Mr. Arthur Scargill, although I realise that he was only following bad examples which have been set for him in the past, by—for example—the Leader of the House. As I see him on the Bench, may I say to the Leader of the House that if we, the legislators, do not support the guardians of the law, our job as legislators ceases to have much point.
A Bill of the kind I seek leave to introduce is necessary also for the police who have to enforce the law and who have great difficulty in doing so at present, as we all understand. We owe it also to the people who have a right to go about their business in peace. We also owe a Bill of this kind to the pickets themselves who wish to pursue their lawful aims in lawful ways. All these groups need to have a firm line and a clear definition from which to work and would benefit from it.
Above all, we should pass a Bill of this kind to safeguard this very institution of Parliament. We cannot complain that power is drifting away to irresponsible groups of wreckers if we do not dare to use the authority won for this place by our predecessors. It is our duty to set down the framework of law for the protection of the people. I do not of course claim that one Ten-Minute Bill, with the very limited purpose that I have outlined can alone stop the slide of this country, or anything like it; but this measure is designed to seek out and take up areas of agreement between the two sides of the House against the wreckers outside.
If we pull together across the Floor of the House, we can reassert our authority and leadership; and the people will be with us if we do. The volunteers and the resourcefulness of the British character can save this country now as they have done in the past. I say to my parliamentary neighbours as well as to the rest of the House that I believe the wreckers will be defeated and that the sooner this House reasserts itself to lead to that defeat, the better.
I realise that it may be impossible for right hon. Members opposite to agree even to clarify the present law on picketing as stated by Ministers. If so, it will fall to us on this side in a few months to do what we can. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or weeks."] Or weeks. But I would

much prefer, and I hope that there are at least some opposite who would prefer it, if it were to be on an agreed basis, a joint effort as would be proposed in the Bill I seek leave to introduce and as the right hon. Lady who leads my party has suggested.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. George Robertson: Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman rising to oppose?

Mr. Robertson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
It is perhaps only because I have come recently to this institution of Parliament that I do not have the same faith as others in the inherent ability of Acts of Parliament passed in 20 minutes or in 20 months automatically to affect the world outside the gates of this building. This is not the time, and this is certainly not the place, to start yet another experiment in legislation in the complex field of industrial relations. Surely, if we have learned anything on both sides of this House, it is that perhaps industry in its industrial relations should be allowed to get on with its own affairs without perpetual interference in a niggling kind of way in areas where there is no clear need to do so.
From practical experience in industrial relations, I believe that this Bill and its intention would contribute not one whit to the problems that we as a country are facing. This form of legislation would simply be seen as a counter-productive and emotional reaction to present individual circumstances and would have no effect, other than a damaging effect, on what is going on in the country today. The fundamental point that we as legislators in Parliament have to accept is that a degree of consensus must exist in the country for any legislation we put forward.
Earlier this afternoon the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition quoted the chief constable of Manchester in support of her thesis that additional legislation is necessary in this field. May I refresh the right hon. Lady's memory on the viewpoint of another policeman? Sir Robert Mark was Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in London. In 1973, on a BBC television programme, the Dimbleby lecture, he made a speech


in which one of his fundamental points was:
Those who frame new laws sometimes give insufficient weight to the difficulties of enforcement. They devote much care and time to debating the moral implications but assume, often quite wrongly, that people can be made to obey them.
There is a more important point here, from a practising policeman of high repute:
Once enacted, some laws are dumped like unwanted babies on the backdoor of the police station with little or no inquiry as to their eventual health.
We have reached a stage in our industrial relations history at which there appears to be a consensus that some actions by a minority of people involved in picketing are perhaps giving rise to genuine public concern, but the vast majority of those who exercise their democratic right in a free society to picket at their place of work are not those who have led to that stimulated debate. It would be wrong to take precipitate action in Parliament to deal with the problem.
The Government have circulated, and are in the middle of discussions on, a

code of conduct relating to picketing. It includes the practical problems involved in picketing and legislation. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) was quoted in the Financial Times on 13 January as saying that the next Conservative Government would reaffirm the existing law on the nature of peaceful persuasion and would seek a widespread agreement on a sensible code of conduct.

What could be a more inappropriate time to introduce a Bill on the spur of the moment? It has no possibility of success, but it would undermine the consultations taking place between the Government and both sides of industry. It would be an emotional bed bath for the House and would have no effect other than to anger and irritate. It would do no good and much harm to British industrial relations.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 209. Noes 207.

Division No.69]
AYES
[4.21 p.m


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Holland, Philip


Aitken, Jonathan
Drayson, Burnaby
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Alison, Michael
Durant, Tony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Raiph (North Norfolk)


Arnold, Tom
Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hurd, Douglas


Baker, Kenneth
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Beith, A. J.
Fell, Anthony
James, David


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forman, Nigel
Jopling, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Blaker, Peter
Freud, Clement
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter
Kilfedder, James


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kimball, Marcus


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brittan, Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodhart, Phillip
Knox, David


Brotherton, Michael
Goodhew, Victor
Lamont, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodlad, Alastair
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lawerence, Ivan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lawson, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bulmer, Esmond
Grey, Hamish
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Burden, F. A.
Grieve, Percy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grist, Ian
Lloyd, Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Sallibury)
Luce, Richard


Channon, Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Churchill, W. S.
Hannam, John
McCrindle, Robert


Clark, William (Cryodon S)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Macfarlane, Neil


Cockcroft, John
Haselhurst, Alan
MacGregor, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Costain, A. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Crouch, David
Heseltine, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Doig, Peter
Hodgson, Robin
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)




Mather, Carol
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maude, Angus
Prior, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Mawby, Ray
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Raison, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rhodes James, R.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Moate, Roger
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thompson, George


Monro, Hector
Ridsdale, Julian
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rifkind, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D.


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Trotter, Neville


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Mudd, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Nelson, Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Shepherd, Colin
Weatherill, Bernard


Newton, Tony
Shersby, Michael
Wells, John


Normanton, Tom
Silvester, Fred
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Whitney, Raymond


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Richard (Workington)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Pardoe, John
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Younger, Hon George


Parkinson, Cecil
Speed, Keith



Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Penhaligon, David
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. John Cope and


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanley, John
Mr. Patrick Cormack




Noes


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Armstrong, Ernest
Dewar, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashley, Jack
Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmor


Ashton, Joe
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott' ham)
Edge, Geoff
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, John (Brig &amp; Scun)
Kerr, Russell


Bates, Alf
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bean, R. E.
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lambie, David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamborn, Harry


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lamond, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin
Litterick, Tom


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Luard, Evan


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Robert C (Newcastle W)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Buchanan, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cant, R. B.
Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Carter-Jones. Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth),
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Molloy, William


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonman, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cowans, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morton, George


Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)
Home Robertson, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cronin, John
Horam, John
Newens, Stanley


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Oakes, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orboch, Maurice


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)







Price, William (Rugby)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Radice, Giles
Snape, Peter
Watkins, David


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkinson, John


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stallard, A. W.
Weetch, Ken


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stott, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rooker, J. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Selby, Harry
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woodall, Alec


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tierney, Sydney
Woof Robert


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tilley, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tinn, James



Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Torney, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Michael Ward and


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. John Sever


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Cope, Mr. Patrick Mayhew and Mr. Ian Gow.

PICKETING

Mr. John Cope accordingly presented a Bill to clarify the law in picketing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 February and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[6th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In the period that is left of this halt Supply day, I wish to turn the spotlight on another aspect of the present industrial unrest. Though not quite so dramatic as the situation in our hospitals, which was discussed yesterday, it is, in its own way, equally sad and serious, I refer to the effects of the present industrial unrest on our education services and the disruption of education provided for our children.
I begin by stating one or two facts. At the beginning of this month many schools, particularly in the North-West of England, were unable to open because of a shortage of oil due to the action of tanker drivers. Many schools were closed for at least a week. Two weeks ago, on 22 January, during the one-day strike by the National Union of Public Employees and other public service workers, according to an answer that I received from the Department of Education and Science, in 25 out of 52 local authority areas the large majority of schools were closed. According to the Secretary of State, it was reasonable to deduce that almost half the schools in the country were closed. About 4½ million out of the 9 million children of school age failed to receive any education.
Since that day sporadic action has continued. As always happens in such situations, the picture is not absolutely clear, since it changes day by day. But there are some things that one can say with certainty. In Haringey, all 56 schools, involving 37,000 children, have been closed since 22 February. In Barking, all 75 schools have been closed since 29 January.
Sunderland and Newcastle upon Tyne face major strike action. I understand that in Sunderland 62 out of 170 schools are closed. I am told that in the whole of the North-East the situation is becoming more serious. Two-thirds of the schools in Gateshead are the subject of industrial action, with 91 schools closed. In Tyneside, only the fifth and sixth forms are open.
According to a report in yesterday's evening newspapers, NUPE claims that 1,500 schools, involving 700,000 pupils, are closed in London alone. There are mounting threats of more strikes by caretakers in different parts of the country, all of which, by means of closing the schools, will have a direct effect on the education of our children.
I ask the House to consider for a moment what that means. What does it mean to the children and the parents? What does it mean when we consider the risk to children, particularly young children, who turn up at school, possibly after a bus journey, to find that the gates are barred and that they have nowhere to go? What does it mean to parents who send their children off to school in the morning not knowing whether the school will he open to admit them? In particular, what does it mean to working mothers, whose whole life is disrupted because they cannot be sure that their children are being looked after during the time they are at work? What attitude is created in the minds of young children who see the effects of action of this kind?
Above all, what does closing schools mean to the children themselves? Time lost in education is time that is lost for ever. For many it comes at a critical period in their education. To those who are taking O-levels and A-levels in June of this year any time lost may have a serious effect indeed. It can determine whether they pass sufficient O or A-level examinations to enable them to continue in higher education, thereby affecting their ability to obtain a degree. In the end, this can affect their ability for the rest of their lives.
I believe that the majority of hon. Members feel that action which has that kind of effect on children who are in no way involved in the strike is a


callous disregard of their future. Those who act in this way, and those who order them to do so, are lacking in the normal standards to be expected in a civilised society.
I ask the Secretary of State whether the situation is such today that we have reached the pitch in our industrial relations where children's education is to be looked upon as nothing more than a pawn to be tossed aside in the battle for higher wages.
When I intervened in the debate on 22 January, the Home Secretary seemed to imply that it was all to do with the press peddling lies, that really there was no intention to prevent children crossing picket lines, and that there was no intention to disrupt their education. I shall give one or two brief quotations from those who are leading the strike. Mr. Barker, the London divisional officer of NUPE, said:
As far as we are concerned, strike action means keeping the children out. There wouldn't be any point in taking action otherwise.
Another alleged leader of NUPE said that the union was
not prepared to tolerate councils keeping schools open when our members are taking action.
A NUPE official in Barking said:
If we are going to win a decent minimum wage, we have got to hit the children.
A Mr. Race said:
You can't have a strike of caretakers without schools being closed down.
Far from being the lies of the press, it appears to be the clear intention of some of those involved in the srtike to cause as much disruption as possible.
What, then, is the Secretary of State's attitude? To her credit, she has openly and publicly, with our support, deplored what is going on. She has said:
It is legitimate action for NUPE members to withdraw their labour, but preventing children from going to school is a wholly unjustified use of the strike weapon.
She has also said:
I strongly believe that wherever possible authorities should keep the schools open so that children can continue their education.
The words are fine, but what on earth has happened to the action? In view of the right hon. Lady's clearly expressed views that preventing children from going

to school is a wholly unjustified use of the strike weapon and in view of her repeated statements in the House that she believed that schools should be kept open, what advice are she and her Department giving, or are they prepared to give, to local education authorities to ensure that arrangements are made to see that schools are kept open so that children's education is not affected? Sadly, the answer appears to be "No advice whatsoever."
Certainly, as far as I can discover, the right hon. Lady was unwilling to give any advice to local education authorities before 22 January, and as far as I know she has given none since. Indeed, far from the right hon. Lady's giving advice, the position is totally the reverse. Having said that she believed that wherever possible local education authorities should keep schools open, she added:
I am not advocating that teachers or others should undertake the work done by members of unions who are on official strike.
If she is not advocating that, what is she advocating?
If schools are closed, as they are today, because caretakers are on strike and are not opening them, and if the right hon. Lady specifically says that she is not prepared to advocate that others should open them in their place, how on earth does she suggest her wish should be achieved that wherever possible local education authorities should keep the schools open? Having said that preventing children from going to school is a wholly unjustified use of the strike weapon, the right hon. Lady is by her unwillingness to give any lead in the matter totally condoning that which she claims to be unjustified.
It is not a question of putting in the troops. It is not even a question of calling for volunteers. It is merely a matter of giving a lead to those who are on the premises to do that which they can do to ensure that education carries on.
The appalling industrial situation that we face must give grave concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Small groups of workers in pursuit solely of their own self-interest can do untold harm to the interests of others. Does not the right hon. Lady realise that if we are to rid society of that we need nothing less than a total change of attitude within society? Does not she realise that one of the attitudes that must


be changed is the blind allegiance to the view that in no circumstances is any person to do the work of another who happens to be on strike, irrespective of the harm that that strike may be doing to innocent victims? Does not she realise that by her own words she is encouraging and endorsing that attitude?
Worse still, does not the right hon. Lady realise that by using such language as that in her statement, that there has been an agreement that teachers will not be stopped by picket lines from entering schools, she is herself giving credence to the totally false notion that those on strike have a right to prevent other people from going about their legitimate business?
What sickens me most of all today is that we are seeing in the attitudes displayed by the strikers the result of the philosophy of the speeches and actions of the Labour Party over the past 20 years, and in particular of the present Government since 1974. It is no good for the Prime Minister to wring his hands in anguish about the abuses of picketing that we have seen and the unwillingness of people to cross picket lines when he and his Government, by their action in extending immunity to secondary picketing and extending the stranglehold of the closed shop, have themselves brought about and encouraged the very abuses they now condemn.
It is no good for the right hon. Lady to deplore the disruption of our children's education, education that is a responsibility of hers through office, when, by her own words, she supports the attitudes that have made that possible. In short, it is no use for her and the present Government to deplore the end when it is they who have willed the means.
Therefore, will the right hon. Lady please state two things when she speaks? First, will she commend those caretakers who, in defiance of the instructions of their union but in the interests of the children in their schools, kept the schools open? Secondly, will she tell the local education authorities quite clearly that, despite the threats of action by caretakers in refusing to open schools, they have a clear duty to ensure that, so far as is possible, children's education should not be interfered with and that therefore they should provide other means to ensure

that that education can continue? Will she assure them that if they take that action and follow that lead they will have the Government's support?
I have no doubt that the right hon. Lady is totally genuine in her rejection of violence. But she cannot forget that by herself being involved in a picket line she gave encouragement to others to go there and therefore cannot escape her responsibility for what has ensued. Therefore, so much the greater is her responsibility today to give her wholehearted backing to members of staff and local education authorities that are keeping schools open despite the action of those on strike.
The National Union of Teachers has rightly advised its members to ignore picket lines. The National Association of Head Teachers, yesterday or today, advised its members that if local education authorities wish to keep schools open the heads should assist in keeping them open. The right hon. Lady has had meetings in attempts to agree a code of behaviour by those involved in the strikes. The fact remains that a maintained school is the property of the local education authority. Presumably, therefore, anyone acting with the authority of that body has the right to open that school and to go on to those premises. There is nothing magic in the ownership of a key. I ask the Secretary of State whether she is prepared to advise local education authorities that that is what she believes they should do.
I turn finally to the legal position. May I remind the Secretary of State of what I understand is the statutory position? Under section 8 of the 1944 Act it is a duty of the local education authority to ensure that sufficient schools are available for providing primary and secondary education. By section 39 of that Act there is a duty on parents to see that the children attend school regularly. The right hon. Lady said the other day that she felt there was no action against local education authorities because the courts would hold that force majeure exists.
I have looked up, in as many dictionaries as I can find, the definition of "force majeure". In its strict interpretation, it means superior force. I presume that it might be said that for a union to take any action is, in the eyes of this Government, the action of superior force.


But I do not believe that the right hon. Lady can seriously argue, using force majeure in its normal terms, namely, action outside one's control, that the action is outside the control of the local education authority when it is not opening that which it could open.
The right hon. Lady may be right in saying that the parents themselves have no right of action to enforce that duty. But she has. She possesses the one remedy available. By section 99 of the Act, if she is satisfied that any local education authority is failing to discharge the duty imposed upon it, she may make an order declaring the authtority to be in default and to direct it to carry out its duty, and any such direction may be enforced through the courts.
I raise that matter with the Secretary of State because she has received a letter in the last few days from the parents of a Hornsey school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), one of the schools in Haringey, which has been closed for over two weeks directly under the instructions of the local education authority, which advised the staff and children to stay away. The parents have asked the right hon. Lady if she will take the action she can take on their behalf under the Act. Until last night they had had no reply. I should like to know what is her answer to that request.
In the wider aspect, the present Government have never hesitated to issue circulars to local education authorities giving advice and instructing them on the type of education they must have. Now, when their help is sought and when authorities could well do with advice and guidance from the Department of Education and Science to remind them of their duties, so that they can support the head teachers, who can keep schools open, they appear to take no action at all.
The right hon. Lady has said repeatedly that she deplores what is happening. Yet she does not appear to be prepared to take any action to attempt to prevent what is happening. Once again, like other Ministers in this Government, she has failed to live up to the duty imposed upon her.

4.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): Let me say straight away that I am grateful for the opportunity that this Supply day gives me to set out what is happening in education and to respond to the charge made by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that the Department is doing nothing about it. Before I set out what the Department is doing and what the present situation is, it is important to underline the fact that, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman likes it or not, the employers of teachers are the local authorities. The local authorities are in direct charge of their schools, and the powers of the Department of Education and Science are limited.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a couple of legal questions with which I should like to deal. Section 99 of the Education Act 1944 provides that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that local education authorities have
failed to discharge any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of this Act, the Minister may make an order declaring the authority … to be in default.
The premier section of the Act is section 8(1), which provides:
It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools—

(a) for providing primary education and..
(b) for providing secondary education…

I have, of course, taken legal advice on this matter. I am advised that this section is concerned with the provision of sufficient school accommodation to provide education for children. It is true that there is another enforcement power to which the hon. and learned Gentleman might be referring, that is, section 68 of the 1944 Act, which says that if a local education authority has acted, or is proposing to act, unreasonably
with respect to the exercise of any power confirmed or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act
I can give directions as to the exercise of that power or the performance of that duty.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows of the drastic narrowing of that power implicit in the Tameside judgment. It was commended by his own party some months ago. I report the words of that


judgment given by Lord Salmon, in his summing-up. He said:
In my opinion, section 68 on its true construction means that before the Minister could lawfully issue directions under it, he must satisfy himself not only that he does not agree with the way the authority has acted or is proposing to act nor even that the authority is mistaken or wrong. The question he must ask himself is 'Could any reasonable local authority act in the way the authority has acted or is proposing to act?
I am taking legal advice on the question the hon. and learned Gentleman raised. I am bound to tell him that the narrowing of section 68, in the light of the Tameside judgment, makes it extremely unlikely that one could find unreasonable the action of a local authority in closing schools, when faced with suggestions that if it did not close them there would be further action, for example, against a section of the education system—such as in Haringey special schools—that it is able to maintain. It is very doubtful whether section 68 would stand up in the light of the Tameside judgment.
I want to refer to another matter which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised before I speak on the broad question of the schools system and what is happening to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question which has been raised by many Conservative Members and continually reiterated by newspapers. It concerns my presence on the picket line at Grunwick on 19 May 1977. I make no accusations against the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an honourable Member of this House, but I have been subject to a degree of smear and innuendo which I find almost equivalent to the propaganda of some regimes in the past which would not describe themselves as democratic.
I should like to put the simple facts before the House. I visited the picket at Grunwick on 19 May 1977. It was a wholly peaceful picket and had been peaceful for the previous 10 months. There was no question at that time of any violence on the picket line. I believe that fellow members of my union, engaged in that strike, had a legitimate grievance. That is still my view in terms of the conditions under which they were labouring. I appeared on that picket line as a member of that union. I freely admit

that to the House. Nor am I shamed of it.
It was nearly a month later before there was any violence of any kind on the picket line at Grunwick. Within a few days of that first violence. I issued a public statement to the press which I will read to the House. It was dated 24 June 1977 and stated:
I deplore the intervention of the far Right and the far Left who have no useful place in this dispute and whose arrival on the scene —very late in the day, I might say—has done no good to the cause my union is fighting for. Their intervention may have stiffened the intransigence of management and it has raised the temperature in a wholly unhelpful way.
I want to put that on the record because hon. Members are open to question my judgment about appearing on the picket line. I agree that they are entitled to do that. But nobody is entitled to read from that episode that I in any way condone, or would condone, violence. I am totally opposed to it.

Mr. Carlisle: The Secretary of State will remember that I was careful to say that I fully accepted her total sincerity in saying that she would never advocate or support violence.

Mrs. Williams: I have already said that I did not for a moment associate the hon. and learned Member with the criticisms that I am bound to make of some of his colleagues and some newspapers.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the Secretary of State recognise with the wisdom of hindsight that gestures of solidarity of the type which she demonstrated by going to the picket line always lay themselves open in this place and elsewhere to guilt by association when things turn out differently? Does she now regret what she did?

Mrs. Williams: Guilt by association is something about which the House should be careful. It is an extremely dangerous doctrine. It was an official strike and, in my view, the conditions were such as to justify publicity being brought to bear on it.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn raised a number of issues which are of great concern to the House and those interested in education.
I deplore any loss of time at school for children because, as I have often said,


children cannot repeat their formal education, and many will never recover ground that they have lost. I agree that some boys and girls may suffer all their lives from the consequences of failing examinations, or doing less well than they might otherwise have done, because they are unable to prepare adequately for them. This is especially true of young people attempting CSE examinations because final grades are in part based on an assessment of school work.
Furthermore, thousands of young people have already suffered disruption of their education this winter, from appalling weather conditions, interruptions of supplies of fuel or food to their schools as a result of the road haulage strike, and in some instances the effects of the sporadic railway dispute on teachers and pupils trying to get to school.
Some of these boys and girls are the children of the very people who have been engaged in disputes. However bitter the grievance—and I recognise that among low-paid men and women there is a strong sense of grievance—I cannot see what is to be gained by visiting those grievances upon the children.
Having said that, let me tell the House the present position as far as I am able to ascertain it from the reports of the 97 English local education authorities. As the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn said, the factual position is not always easy to ascertain.
Today at lunchtime about 1,150 schools were closed mainly, but not entirely, as a result of industrial action by public service unions. That represents about 4·4 per cent. of the 25,000 schools in England. It compares with 1,300 schools which were closed or partially closed a fortnight ago. The position is fluid and in most areas changes from day to day.
The public service unions have selected certain areas for longer-term action as distinct from one-day strikes. Of the 1,150 or so schools now closed, about 900 of them are in the areas of just 10 local education authorities. In Barking all schools including special schools are closed. In Haringey all schools are closed with the exception of two special schools. In Newham all schools are closed with the exception of one volun

tary aided school—a total of 300 schools in these three authorities.
In the North-East of the country, North Tyneside, Gateshead, Newcastle and Sunderland have between them just under 400 schools closed with another 60 schools closed today in Sheffield. Tomorrow 180 schools in Sheffield will be closed for one day as part of the pattern of selective strikes in that city. The remaining areas affected to a considerable extent are in Essex and Cambridgeshire with about 150 school closures between them. There is a possibility that schools in Brent will be closed from tomorrow for the rest of the week.
The strikes started as one-day strikes in many areas on 22 January. As the hon. and learned Member said, on that day about half the schools in the country were closed. The majority of them reopened on 23 January. In all the areas that remain about 1,000 schools are closed.
In a number of schools meals are affected. About 30 authorities have reported that further education classes in schools and evening institutions have had to stop because of a ban on overtime by caretakers. In a few areas further education colleges and libraries have been affected either by partial or complete closure.
Since the hon. and learned Member raised the matter, it is fair for me now to turn to the fact that newspaper reports have not conveyed the correct picture.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Secretary of State has not yet mentioned Hampshire. My information is that 16 out of 72 schools will be closed by a strike of caretakers in my constituency. I mention that because all this started in Havant 18 months ago.

Mrs. Williams: I shall reply to the hon. Member later.
In my view, there has been a considerable addition to what is already a great sense of concern. I do not question that sense of concern because it is legitimate. But it is proper to make a distinction between that and what I can describe only as the wilder and more sensational reports that have appeared recently in newspapers.
Let us examine yesterday's evening newspapers. They announced that 700,000 schoolchildren in the London area were being locked out of school on that day, or would be the following day. The reports said that today all schools in Richmond would be closed. In fact, they are all open. The reports said that selected schools would be closed in Bromley—not true—Croydon—not true —Redbridge—not true—Waltham Forest —not true—Hillingdon—not true—Harrow, Ealing and Hackney—not true. They also said that schools would be affected in Southwark, but only one is affected.

Mr. William Hamilton: I hope that my right hon. Friend will say to which newspapers she refers. Surely it is a matter that should be referred to the Press Council.

Mrs. Williams: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. It is fair to say that it does not help when newspapers carry inaccurate reports and do not withdraw those reports in the light of the true position.

Mr. William Hamilton: Tory rags.

Mrs Williams: Until a week ago, schools were closed because of bad weather and fuel and food shortages in the aftermath of the lorry drivers' and train drivers' strikes. I am glad to say that the position on supplies has improved greatly. Today only about 100 schools are closed because of lack of fuel or food. I am confident that in the next few days all supply difficulties will be resolved. Schools in areas such as Stockport, Trafford, Cleveland, Durham, Cheshire, Leicestershire and Norfolk are nearly back to normal, following the steps that we have taken.
The regional emergency committees played an important part in getting food and fuel supplies to the schools in areas affected by shortages. I arranged for a member of Her Majesty's inspectorate to be attached to each regional emergency committee. His first duty is to work with the committee in the interests of keeping the schools open. We have received daily reports from the regional emergency committees. They have maintained constant contact with all the chief education officers. The committees played a particularly helpful role in overcoming the difficulties experienced by schools in Nor

folk, Durham and others to which I have referred. I am grateful at national level for the support given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that adequate supplies of fuel oil reached the Birmingham and Warwickshire education authorities. Distribution is now being arranged for the schools in those areas and they should reopen shortly.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that schools in the Stockport and Oldham areas reopened this week for the first time since the Christmas holidays? There is a great deal of concern because of the slowness in getting fuel supplies to the schools after the tanker drivers' dispute ended. There is great puzzlement and a wish to know why the supplies were not delivered out of normal hours as it is understood that the drivers were only to willing to work overtime to supply the schools.

Mrs. Williams: We have taken up these issues at local level. In some instances the problem was of a technical nature. For example, boilers were unable to handle an immediate return to full use. The other difficulty that has arisen lies with the disrupted supply of fuel oil because of sporadic railway strikes. In some areas there has been an inadequate supply of fuel oil to meet the needs. If my hon. Friend gives me details, the matter will be taken up immediately, as it has been in every case that has been brought to our attention by hon. Members. That has been done within an hour or so following hon. Members contacting my Department.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that difficulty has emerged in the London borough of Havering—it is one that I find difficult to understand—because headmasters do not have keys to the gates of the schools? Surely it is extremely unwise that a headmaster should not have access to his school. Will that be considered?

Mrs. Williams: If my hon. Friend allows me to continue with my speech, he will find that some of his argument has been met.
Authorities have been hit by the selective strikes of the public service unions. Some authorities have managed locally to


make arrangements to continue the education of some of the children in their areas, especially those in examination years. I am referring only to the authorities that have most or all of their schools closed and not to the 87 authorities that have so far suffered only limited action.
In North Tyneside, for example, the authority has agreed with the unions that special schools should be exempted from strike action and that fifth and sixth formers may continue to study in schools. Gateshead has reached agreement on keeping special schools open. Heads of secondary schools are planning to make arrangements for the education of examination pupils to continue in church halls. Newcastle has obtained agreement to keep all but one secondary school open for fifth and sixth form pupils and in Sunderland fifth and sixth formers are being taught in church halls. In other areas teachers are doing what they can to arrange for examination pupils to deliver work for marking and to pick up fresh homework.
From these reports it is clear that the great majority of schools are working normally. Even in the areas where they are not, the House will take note that individual local education authorities have made special arrangements to mitigate the effects of industrial action on their schoolchildren. In areas where there has been a total closure, or a large proportion of schools are shut down, or which have been singled out for selective action for an indefinite period, authorities are making local arrangements for special groups to be catered for. I welcome that.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me perfectly fairly not what was being done by local education authorities, although I thought it fair to list some of the action that they were taking, but what action the Department of Education and Science was taking to support and help local education authorities in the action that they were undertaking. I am pleased to reply.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said —I agree with him—that parents of young children would be deeply concerned if their children appeared at school with no arrangements made for their care. We must realise that if lightning strikes take place children may be sent to school only

to find the school closed. If their parents have left for work, children could be roaming the streets. They could be at risk and the authority may not have time to make alternative arrangements.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to the damage to children taking public examinations in their examination year and having the sitting and preparing for those examinations disrupted. During the week before last I met the public service unions and spelt out to them the dangers to young children in the event of lightning strikes. I also mentioned to them the effect on young people if they are unable to take public examinations in a familiar and quiet atmosphere. I said that there is a risk that some boys and girls will leave school and be unable to repeat the examinations, possibly with lifelong consequences for their employment and the opportunity to go ahead in their working lives.
The four public service unions agreed together—I am not referring to any negotiations because nothing of that sort took place—on the guidance that they would offer in the light of the points that I made to them. They agreed to tell their members of the minimum standards to be observed when industrial action involved schools.
The unions agreed to give 48 hours' notice wherever possible of any action concerning schools, including notice on Friday morning of any action to start the following Monday. I welcome that. So far I have no evidence, apart from one instance in Bedfordshire where there appears to have been a misunderstanding, of the code not being maintained.
As I said publicly on 31 January, I do not believe that a 48-hour notice can compensate children for the loss of time at school. However, the House should recognise that to some extent it deals with the worry that many of us have had about the safety of young children left at schools where notice of action has not been given.
The unions accepted that it is important in the long-term interests of children to avoid any disruption of public examinations. To that end, they pledged that any school, or part of a school, designated for the sitting of public examinations by the local education authority would not be closed or otherwise disrupted.
Since my conversation with the public service unions, the National Union of Teachers has approached them. It has established that in addition to public examinations so-called "mock" examinations, or internal working examinations, will be covered by the agreement between the unions. In addition, there will be no difficulties raised about the establishment of alternative accommodation for the preparation of examinations outside the schools.

Mr. John Watkinson: My right hon. Friend has referred to giving notice to schools of possible action. Is she aware that in Gloucestershire, which is not one of the worst hit counties, there seems to be little knowledge of the code of practice? Will she take steps through her Department to monitor the various authorities to ensure that the code is widely known, especially on the union side?

Mrs. Williams: To the best of my knowledge, which is up to today, three schools in the county have been to some extent affected by caretakers' action. We have an immediate emergency system established. Any reports that the 48-hour rule is not being operated have been dealt with immediately and will be dealt with immediately if hon. Members draw the attention of my Department to any breakdown in the system. It is up to hon. Members to draw such matters to our attention if they believe that there is any breach of the agreement between the unions.
Since the public service unions issued guidance to their members, I have seen the senior officers of both head teacher associations—namely, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Secondary Heads' Association. I asked them to tell their members that heads should open schools wherever 48 hours' notice of industrial action has not been given by the strikers or where a school is being used for public examinations. That is in accordance with the advice that the Secondary Heads' Association gave to its members on 11 January. It has involved substantial amendment to the advice given by the National Association of Head Teachers to its members on 18 January.
I quote that advice because it is relevant to the issue raised by the hon.

Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The advice was that
any duties normally undertaken by ancillary staff are not part of the Head's duties, that Heads are not responsible for opening-up or securing premises, and that it is the responsibility of the LEA to arrange for the premises to be opened in the event of a strike.
I am glad that that advice has now been amended along the lines I have indicated to the House.
I saw the chairmen of the two main local authority associations' education committees, Councillor Horrell of the Association of County Councils and Councillor Thornton of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, on 25 January and I have had further talks with both associations this week. I agreed with them that local education authorities should keep schools open wherever practicable and that, where schools are closed—for example, as a result of action by caretakers—they should make provision in suitable alternative accommodation, such as church halls, for the teaching of boys and girls in their examination years. That provision includes those taking CSE and O-levels and those taking A-level or other post-16 examinations and, wherever possible, in addition, the setting of homework for children in other years.
The damage to children's education will be limited if teaching and preparation can continue. I understand that the public service unions accept that this is a matter for local negotiations and that they are content that local arrangements of this kind should be made. I hope and believe that teachers will co-operate in these actions, as they are already doing in certain affected areas, such as Sunderland and Newcastle. I repeat that teachers have been advised by their unions that they may cross picket lines. The teachers' unions made it clear that in all circumstances the safety of children should be paramount. I should state again that the public service unions have made it plain that neither children nor teachers should be obstructed or prevented from crossing picket lines.
In the discussion on 29 January, following my statement to the House on that day, the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), as reported in columns 1035 and 1036 of Hansard, claimed that there was intimidation of children by pickets and said that this was stopping children


going to school. I asked him on that occasion to send details of what he had in mind and said that we would immediately take it up with the unions concerned as a matter of the utmost urgency. I have had no report from the hon. Gentleman, from any other hon. or right hon. Member or, up to now, from any member of the public. I repeat, if any such report is made to me, the matter will be pursued immediately and with all possible urgency.
I do not think that any local education authority should close its schools without making every possible effort to keep them open, if necessary on a limited day basis of the kind that one or two authorities have considered because of problems about school meals. But I repeat that I do not expect LEAs to order their teachers or head teachers to undertake the normal work of those on strike.
Every local education authority has the legal right to access to its premises, and where health and safety or welfare of the school building is concerned a local education authority has the right to seek that access. I believe that in matters of public health—for instance, where food may be decomposing on school premises or where pet animals are not being cared for—the authorities must take steps to make sure that any hazards that may be involved are avoided.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are more complications in this situation than is apparent from what she has said? In Harrow, where I believe some local authorities have prematurely closed schools, one of the reasons advanced for closure is that the dustmen in the borough, where we have had immense trouble, have said that, if schools remain open, they will not only step up their strike but will never go back to work again. What can he done about that situation?

Mrs. Williams: My present report is that no schools in Harrow are affected. Of course, I cannot vouch for what is happening about the dustbins. The situation may be as the hon. Gentleman described it. But no schools are at the moment affected in Harrow, and I understand that no notice has been given of industrial action.
Where schools are closed for more than a day or so, some authorities are considering how time lost can be made up. I have heard of one authority, Stockport —and there may be others—where teachers have volunteered to make good some of the time lost through school closures during the tanker drivers' strike. I pay tribute to the dedication of those involved, both teaching and non-teaching staff, in doing that. Schools have a good deal of flexibility in such matters and no doubt LEAs will wish to explore such possibilities with their own teachers and other school staff. However, I emphasise that such approaches will succeed only if the good will of all those involved is forthcoming.
I repeat that moves of the kind that I have outlined require the local education authority to explore its own local possibilities. I can advise, guide and exhort, but I cannot command local education authorities to act in a particular way. The Conservative Party, which often espouses the cause of local authority autonomy, cannot now say that the Government are wholly responsible for every local authority action which it dislikes. Nor can it insist that the Government intervene with every local authority which is not taking action. To suggest that is political manoeuvring of a cheap kind.
The Conservative Party often declares that the man or woman in Whitehall does not know best. I repeat that we will offer every help we can to local authorities in keeping schools open, but in the end it must be for them to decide what action is best advised, given the local circumstances. I have tried to outline the actions which in my view could effectively be taken.

Mr. Ron Thomas: My right hon. Friend has given a very comprehensive picture of the situation and has, I think, dealt adequately with the rent-a-crisis crowd on the Benches opposite. I hope that before she sits down she will say something about the appalling wage levels of caretakers and ancillary staff in our schools. What is she doing, as Secretary of State, to persuade the Government to increase what I think is still an unacceptably low offer of about 8 per cent.?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend has anticipated the next part of my speech.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the only positive thing she has so far said is to urge teachers to cross picket lines and to go on teaching? The responsibility is on the local education authorities to give some support. What concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House is that we are putting teachers in an impossible position. We need some guarantee that the statutory obligations placed upon local authorities will be maintained. It seems that some local authorities have such a degree of tolerance for the people on strike that they are not living up to their statutory obligations.

Mrs. Williams: I always find the hon. Gentleman engaging, but I am not sure how numerate he is. I have counted eight separate things that I have said should be done or have been done. I have mentioned precise agreements reached, first, with the public service unions, secondly, with the headmasters' associations, thirdly, with the unions of teacher organisations and, fourthly, with local authorities. I really think that the hon. Gentleman is being very selective in his list of my remarks to the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I very much appreciate the comments of my right hon. Friend about the teachers in Stockport and their willingness to teach during holiday periods to make up for lost time, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that occasional days are used to compensate for any loss of school time and that holidays, such as half-term, should not be extended, as they have been traditionally, by what are called occasional days?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend has been perfectly fair. The position in law is that all children must have 400 half-day sessions of schooling each year. However, subtracted from that is a figure of 20 sessions—10 days—which can be used for occasional holidays. It would be quite wrong for me to say that these days should be given up, but where authorities and their teacher organisations can agree that some of this time could be used to compensate children where time has been lost on a serious scale, I commend that course to them. However, I repeat, it depends on the good will of all

concerned. It is not something that we can require by law.
I turn finally to those engaged in the disputes. I recognise that some local authority employees are low paid, including some school caretakers, cleaners and other non-teaching staff. Average earnings in most cases are a good deal better than the basic wage, and some employees are entitled to bonus payments. However, others work part-time—for instance, in the school meals service.
Any employees whose gross pay for a basic 40-hour week is less than £70—I agree with my hon. Friends that £70 is not much on which to live in these days —will benefit from the Government's offer to underpin any increase at £3·50 and to finance that element through the rate support grant. They will also gain from free school meals, rent and rate rebates and increased child benefit, which will be £4 per week per child in April. The dilemma for low-paid workers is that they lose on the swings all—and more—that they gain on the roundabouts if an unchanged structure of differentials is erected on a new, higher figure. For all these increases feed through into higher prices and higher interest rates, and low-paid workers end up no better off. Indeed, they will be worse off, because they will lose some of their income during a strike and will be even harder hit by inflation.
This is the mockery implicit in free collective bargaining, espoused by the Conservative Party and the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, with the addition of the adjective "responsible". It provides no answer to the problem of the less powerful and of the low paid, it offers no solution to the problem of inflation, and it certainly offers no new way of the kind advocated by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn at the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
It is true, and should be said, that the unions have not reached any understanding on whether priority should be given to the low paid or to the restoration of differentials. Yet, trying to combine the two is a recipe for inflation. However, it is encouraging that a number of trade union leaders have come together to try to grapple with this problem and have proposed the setting of an indicative norm


each year and a body to make recommendations on the claims put before it. I believe that this contribution to the debate could play a major part in tackling our national problems.
We must find an answer on these lines. Meanwhile, the Government cannot concede double-figure claims of the kind now being made without putting the economy and the currency at risk. We are close to being sucked back into the bitter cycle of inflationary settlements, higher prices, pressure on sterling and the inevitable attempt to rectify the situation either by higher taxes or cuts in public expenditure or both.
Let me spell out the consequences of a 15 per cent. increase in pay for local authority employees generally. It would mean rate increases of well over 20 per cent. compared with the single figure average rate increase that was compatible with the rate support grant settlement. Or, if local authorities decided to finance such an increase instead by cuts in staff, it would entail for the education service alone—and there would be corresponding effects in other parts of local government service—the loss of upwards of 30,000 teaching jobs and 20,000 non-teaching jobs in England and Wales.
As a social services Minister, I have been down the stony road of public expenditure cuts before. Now, like my colleagues, I am able to see the prospects for a modest improvement: smaller classes, more in-service training, a first step towards educational maintenance allowances, additional resources for school improvements and additional resources for nursery schools. The same is true of the Health Service, the environmental services and the personal social services. All this is being put at risk for, I am afraid, illusory gains. I am saying this for the sake not only of the children, though they are the most important of all, but of the public service employees themselves.
I am encouraging LEAs to keep schools open wherever they can and to take the steps open to them to offset the loss of schooling where schools are closed. I am also pursuing arrangements and agreements with all the unions and professional associations involved and seeking their maximum co-operation to

minimise the damage to children. I repeat, my Department and I will seek to help them in every way open to us.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I am afraid that my constituents will draw very little comfort from the speech delivered by the Secretary of State. It will be of little consolation to them to be told that their schools are within the 4 per cent. only of schools which remain closed today. Certainly none of the pious hopes expressed by the right hon. Lady of local education authorities making alternative arrangements will apply in my constituency.
We have entered upon the third week in which education, to all intents and purposes, has ceased to exist in the London borough of Haringey, of which my constituency forms part. Nor does there seem to be any prospect of the situation being remedied at any time in the near future. This is intolerable for the 37,000 children affected and their parents. It is a situation which both the Secretary of State and the local education authority have clear legal and moral obligations to resolve as quickly as possible. Yet, all we see is vacillation, lack of will to act, specious legal argument and an earnest hope that the problem will go away by itself.
There is no need for me to detail to the House the dangers in which my constituents' children are placed. There is the danger to their education—especially those with important public examinations only eight weeks away and whose whole future could be blighted unless they get back to their classes quickly. There is the physical danger to children who roam the streets because their parents are at work and the hardship and cost to those parents who arrange to stay at home from work in order to look after their children.
In all this I wish to pay tribute to those teachers who, of their own initiative, have sought to make alternative arrangements in their homes or in church halls. However, despite the dedication of those teachers and their high sense of professional duty to those in their charge, these arrangements are no more than a token and the dangers remain for the vast majority.
The situation in Haringey could well be considered farcical by the House were it not so tragic. There are no picket lines. If one speaks to the caretakers individually, one finds that they are unhappy with the situation: they do not want to be on strike. The teachers' unions have agreed that their members may open schools and teach, provided that they do not undertake the work normally done by the striking cleaners and caretakers. The governors of several schools have passed resolutions for the opening of their schools.
Despite all that, the local education authority has refused to give permission to the teachers to go into the schools, even in connection with preparation for public examinations. That is where the responsibility lies in my constituency. I understand that is because the majority group on the council, which includes two full-time paid officials of NUPE, has resolved that the schools shall remain closed for the period of the strike. That was a party decision.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the borough of Havering, where the Conservative Party is in control, has also closed schools for very much the same reason, I suspect, as in the hon. Gentleman's constituency?

Mr. Rossi: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech on behalf of his constituents and adduce the facts that are relevant. I speak now on behalf of my constituents. I hope to address the Minister on what is happening in my constituency. Apparently, from what she said, the right hon. Lady is not fully apprised of the true circumstances there.
The attitude of the majority party that controls the London borough of Haringey is borne out by a school closure statement issued by the education office in Haringey. It reads:
Haringey schools have been closed for the past week because of a strike by caretakers and other manual staff.
The council believes that the root of the problem is the Government's pay policy and so the council supports the union's pay claim for a £60 minimum wage.
I wish that the right hon. Lady had addressed her speech on the problems of Government pay policy to the mem-

bers of her party, who form the majority in the London borough of Haringey.
The document continues:
Other staff"—
presumably teachers—
have been advised not to broaden the effects of the strike"—
that is, to stay away from the schools.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Does not my hon. Friend think it is extremely odd in the circumstances that the hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), whose constituencies are in the same local authority area, should not be present to explain the situation?

Mr. Rossi: No doubt the reasons for the absence of the hon. Members are that they have other pressing engagements or fear that they might be asked to defend the indefensible.
Last Thursday I attended a debate of the full education committee of the London borough of Haringey, on a resolution to allow the teachers into the schools on the terms laid down by their professional unions. The resolution was rejected by votes along party political lines. From that debate it was clear that the primary object of the majority party was to further the interests of the strikers, paying little regard to the damage being caused to the children. There was no discussion of what practical steps might be taken to help the children in present circumstances. There was no discussion of the provision of alternative buildings or the opening of schools for public examination purposes. No question of time lost was discussed.
The right hon. Lady expressed the pious hope that the local education authorities would be dealing with such problems at this moment. None of those matters was deemed worthy of discussion by this local education authority when it had the full matter before it for debate on a resolution. Unless obliged to do so, this local education authority will not lift a finger in discharge of its duties under section 8 of the Education Act 1944. The right hon. Lady tried to dazzle us with a little bit of law in her speech. She referred to section 8 of the Education Act. She implied in terms that the duty of the education authority


stopped after it had provided buildings. Section 8 states:
It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools—
(a) for providing … full-time education.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: That is the point.

Mr. Rossi: That is the point.
I suggest that the provision of 100 empty buildings is not the discharge of a duty to provide full-time education. I should like that matter tested. That is why I said that we were being given specious legal reasons for non-action.
I was brought up to understand that a school was more than just a building. If a local authority is under a duty to provide a school, it must provide the building, the teachers, the other facilities and all that is necessary for the provision of education. There is a clear breach of section 8 by this local education authority. I advise the right hon. Lady to go back to her legal advisers and ask them to produce better arguments.
The question therefore remains: what can be done to oblige the local education authority to discharge this clear statutory duty? Some parents are contemplating legal action. As the Secretary of State well knows, the courts ruled that no remedy lies in the courts for a breach of section 8 except perhaps—this is an obiter dictum—where it can be shown that damage has been suffered. Damage to education is a nebulous concept to prove, althtough if parents lose time off work as a result of closure of schools, or must pay private tutors to see to their children's education, that may well amount to damage. However, for the average citizen these are dangerous uncharted waters upon which to launch.
The courts said that the remedy in law for breach by a local education authority of its duty under section 8 is for the Secretary of State to give directions under section 99 where she has received complaints. The statute is there. The courts said that that is the only remedy available in law for a breach of duty by the local education authority.
The Secretary of State has received many complaints from my constituents, yet nothing has been done, refuge being

taken instead behind these specious legal arguments. Every excuse is given today for inaction—" somebody else will do something. We hope that some arrangements will be made locally by common consent." That is ducking the responsibility that is placed by statute on the Secretary of State. What is more, the irony is that the situation is of the Government's making. The children are out of school as a result of Government policy.
I have the greatest sympathy for the lower-paid workers. I should like to see them attain a living wage. It is because of their personal difficulties that the unions have engaged upon a trial of strength with the Government over their pay policy. In this struggle the local authority negotiators are powerless to do anything. The children and their parents have become the innocent pawns in this power game. Thus, the responsibility of the Government is twofold—first, to see that this pay dispute is resolved as quickly as possible. Only the Government can do that. Secondly, they must ensure that meanwhile the education of children does not suffer. The power to deal with both those matters lies with the Government.
What kind of society is it in which we live today? We boast of Western civilisation in the twentieth century. Yet our society does not allow the bereaved to bury their dead or the sick to be cured in hospital. Nor does it even suffer little children to come unto their schools. On behalf of my constituents, I demand that the Secretary of State should cease to look the other way and should now take action.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The House should be aware that I have on my list the names of nine hon. Members who would like to catch my eye. The Front Bench speeches start at 6.35 p.m.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Many Labour Members welcomed the appointment of the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) as the Conservative spokesman on education. He had on his appointment one supreme virtue—he was not the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). But I think it can be said today that the honeymoon is over, for I have rarely heard—I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive


me for saying this—such a farrago of nonsense as the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. It was legal nonsense. One would think, to listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was this Government who had invented and legalised, if not picketing as a whole, at least secondary picketing. What the hon. and learned Gentleman thought was going on at the Saltley coal depot when he was Minister of State, Home Office, the Department responsible for law and order, is beyond my comprehension.
With due respect to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), it is not obvious to me that section 99 bites on section 8 in the way suggested, because the duty to provide sufficient schools to afford full-time education seems to me to be met—and I have little doubt that the courts would hold this—if the authority has provided the buildings, the teachers, the equipment and the books. If for other reasons the authority cannot open the schools, it is not in default of its duty. I would not wish to see the Secretary of State suffer another rebuff from the courts.
Strangely enough, the section that would have been relevant was destroyed by the Tameside judgment. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman was not then the Conservative spokesman for education, the hon. Member for Brent, North, who sits beside him, uttered whoops of joy when that section—which alone would have allowed the Secretary of State to intervene effectively—was destroyed in favour of a Conservative-controlled authority which was behaving far more unreasonably than the Haringey authority. I know this from my own knowledge, because I telephoned it from my own office in the Department of Education and Science. It was running a selection procedure, before its education committee had ever met, from an office above that of an estate agent who was a prominent member of the Conservative Party in Tameside. Yet the hon. Member for Brent, North was delighted when that section was destroyed.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman said today was also moral nonsense, in my view, because the crucial element omitted from his speech was the origin of all this trouble—which I deplore as much as he does—and that is the scandalously low pay for some workers in the public sector. I make no bones about

saying that, because I drew it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he announced this phase of the pay policy last July in the House.
I was talking yesterday to a head teacher from Essex whose caretaker takes home under £40 a week. It is obvious that an 8·8 per cent. increase will do him a fat lot of good. I am not asking for a massive breach of pay policy, but I am suggesting that it is high time that hon. Members on both sides came to grips with the issue of low pay, because we must find a solution to it. It cannot be found on the principle of simultaneously maintaining all differentials.
It may not have escaped the attention of some hon. Members that at exactly the point when this dispute was getting under way there was a claim from the National Union of Teachers for a 35 per cent. increase. Many members of that union—although not all, by any manner of means —are head teachers. Some of them sit on the executive of the NUT and they earn more than Members of this House. It cannot be said to groups such as school caretakers and to dinner ladies that they must restrict themselves to the same percentage increase as people who are demanding 35 per cent. when their income is already £7,000 or £8,000 a year. That sort of policy will not work in the end, and that is one of the origins of the difficulty we face. I should not be surprised if that NUT claim had exacerbated the feelings of some members of the National Union of Public Employees or of the General and Municipal Workers' Union who are engaged in the present dispute.
This House has to come to a resolution of the problem, but so has the Trades Union Congress, and the nation as a whole also has to face up to it. We cannot have it both ways for ever. If we do, we really are in the game of confetti money.
There is a second caveat that I want to make about my sympathy for the NUPE members which has not to do simply with confetti money. It is that some of them seem to believe that they might have an easier time under a Government who were not trying to enforce a pay policy. But what is the alternative? The alternative is the policy that is advocated


repeatedly from the Conservative Front Bench. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn is a monetarist, but he was selected for his present post by the Leader of the Opposition, who is totally committed to that position and who is advised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who is a fanatical monetarist. Their policies amount to a rigid restriction of the money supply, enforced not least in the public sector by, as we hear repeatedly from the Opposition Front Bench, cuts in public expenditure over and above anything that we have seen hitherto, and thereafter very rigid limits.
What does that do for the pay of the caretakers and the dinner ladies? Many of them will be out of jobs. Those of them who remain in work will, in the future, have real take-home pay lower than they have today. That will be the effect of the policy of the Opposition. How they have the gall to criticise the Government for trying to get some sense into the present scramble is beyond my comprehension.
We must devise—and I here I come closer to the position of the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn—a method by which, when industrial action takes place, workers in pursuit of their claim can avoid penalising fellow trade unionists, and avoid penalising the weak and the more defenceless members of society. I mention fellow trade unionists, because that is apparent in this dispute. We are really talking not of the effect on teachers but much more of the effect on parents indirectly. Many of those parents—or at least one parent in each family—will be a member of a trade union, attempting to carry out his own job.
When I speak of the weak and the defenceless, I refer not only to the children who are taking examinations. I am just as much concerned about those children who will not be taking any examinations because they are at the lower end of the attainment spectrum. They cannot afford to miss any of their education, and least of all should they be encouraged to think that they can truant with impunity. One day they are shut out and the next day they do not bother to go to school. I am very concerned about that group

as well as about those who are taking examinations.
It is not the members of NUPE who are excluding the children from the schools. In some cases it may happen by a decision of the local education authority. More often, it is by a decision of the head teacher or by a decision of the teachers collectively that they will not cross the picket line, that they will not perform the duties usually undertaken by NUPE members, and that they will not use the key to open the school. Usually the headmaster has in his pocket a duplicate of the caretaker's key. There has been some vacillation on this issue from the National Union of Teachers, which one day advised its members not to cross picket lines and the next day advised them to cross picket lines. We could at least ask for some consistency there.
Clearly, there is a need for a new understanding on who is to work when other workers are on strike and what workers are to do in those circumstances. Why, after all these years of trade unionism, have we reached the position that we need a new understanding? I believe that the reason—and it is well documented in a number of academic studies—is that over the past 20 years there has been a progressive unionisation of the white collar professions. Today we have a position which could not have arisen 20 or 30 years ago, for then the vast majority of teachers would have crossed picket lines without thinking about it. Today, now that they are unionised, they do not cross picket lines. Some head teachers will not open their schools. A new understanding will have to be worked out. I say no more about that issue, because obviously it is a matter of delicate negotiation in which the Government may be involved, and in which above all the TUC must act by bringing together its member unions.
We also need a new understanding on low pay, but I argue that we shall get neither of these things from the pursuit of the policies advocated time and again from the Conservative Benches. If those policies are pursued, we shall see a souring of the atmosphere. We shall see not a new understanding but a new confrontation which will harm not only education but the whole of the public services in this country.
I look to an early resolution of the dispute. I hope that it will be one that will give many of the most poorly paid workers in the public sector a greater increase in real terms than some of their more greedy colleagues, who are already much better paid, will get. I look forward to an early resolution of this dispute, but I hope that we can learn from it and build upon the lessons that we are learning at the moment so that we may avoid such events in the future. That is what we ought to be debating in this House, instead of making cheap party politics out of it.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John MacGregor: As one of the more silent Members on the Bench below the Gangway, it is rare that I am able to speak in the House at the moment. However, I wish to intervene briefly because I feel strongly about the matter and I am affected by it. I begin by declaring my interest.
While I am fulfilling my responsibilities in the House during the week, I live in the borough of Haringey, my wife is a councillor and on the education committee in the borough and my daughter attends, or rather should be attending, one of the schools there.
I shall not repeat any of the points concerning hardship that were so well made by my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi).
But it is important to concentrate on Haringey because it is more affected than any other part of the country because the strike is indefinite—and still indefinite—and across the board. The figures given by the Secretary of State bear this out. Haringey is also more affected because of the attitude of the local education authority.
I should like to make three points that I hope the Minister will deal with in her reply. The first two are concerned with the role of Haringey authority as an employer as distinct from an education authority. I believe that it is worth repeating the sentence in the rather useless document sent out by the borough to parents and described as a school closure statement:
The Council believes that the root of the problem is the Government's pay policy, and

so the Council supports the Unions' pay claim for a £60 minimum wage.
The members of the council in debates have gone beyond that. They have made it clear that they believe it is up to the Government to meet the full claim of the strikers and that there should be no burden upon ratepayers. Therefore, the Haringey authority is supporting the strikers against their own Government's attitude on pay. That is why the children in Haringey are suffering and why the educational advice has been given by the authority to teachers not to cross picket lines. Moreover, the authority is attempting to shuffle off its responsibilities as an employer by saying that the Government must pay up.
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and many Ministers including the Secretary of State this afternoon, have made it clear that they will not pay up beyond the percentages they have already announced. I agree that the Prime Minister confused the issue by the loose statements that he made this weekend, but he has now made the position clearer —as against what the Secretary of State for Social Services said on Sunday—by saying that there will be nothing beyond what the Government have already offered. I believe that the Secretary of State should not only make that statement in the House but tell the Haringey authority directly.
Second, on Saturday the Prime Minister said, in a passage that was not much quoted because of his gaffe on pay, that the strike weapon should not be used in situations when negotiations have not yet begun or, indeed, until they have been concluded. The negotiations in this dispute have hardly begun and no one could say that we are anywhere near a conclusion. Therefore, there is no reason for the indefinite strike by caretakers in Haringey. The Government should not be lending their support to it, and should instruct the authority likewise to withdraw its support.
The results of an interesting poll appeared in the Daily Express today. I shall not refer to the more sensational aspects of the poll. However, the interesting answer to the question "Do you agree or disagree with the ban on secondary picketing?" was that 86 per cent. of trade unionists so agreed. I accept that we are


not talking about secondary picketing here, though about something not far removed from it in that teachers are being told that they cannot go through a line of school caretakers.
I suspect that if the question "Should teachers be banned by an education authority from going through picket lines because of a caretakers' picket?" were asked, the vast majority would answer as they did on the question of secondary picketing, that they should not.
My final point concerns the role of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the educational role of the authority as distinct from being an employer. The crucial issue here is what the education authority is telling the teachers. Last week the Secretary of State made clear—and this was also made clear in today's debate—that the education authority is not telling the teachers what the Secretary of State would wish them to do and what other education authorities throughout the country, including ILEA and my own education authority in Norfolk, have been telling their teachers. Where the teachers have been given different instructions, these have been followed and schools have been kept open.
It is the instruction of the borough of Haringey that is worrying teachers and frightening them from going into the schools. Immense efforts are being made in teachers' homes, draughty church halls and other places to provide a primitive form of education for children. However, they will not go into the schools because of the instruction.
Not one of the eight things that the Secretary of State said she has done has made a difference to the borough of Haringey. I believe that the Secretary of State, the Government and the borough of Haringey are behaving to the detriment of the children. The Secretary of State today in her latter remarks made tough statements on education and pay policy with which I largely agree. But I believe that it is up to the Secretary of State to go to the borough, and talk with the education authority in order to spell out the points that she made in her concluding remarks, because no one in the Haringey local education authority will

listen unless she goes and tells them herself. That is the kind of action I should like to see her take.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I believe that the indignation and anger felt by members of the community against the current situation and the way in which an industrial threat is being posed towards children is rightful. In her opening remarks the Secretary of State gave the game away when she described the NUPE proposals to switch strike action from place to place. It is a question not of a group of ancillary workers spontaneously refusing to work a day longer for their present wage but of a deliberate policy to pick on various areas and say "That is where the pressure can be applied and that is where we can get results."
Few people involved in the dispute wish to hit children, but they are interested in hitting parents because they know that once a school is closed many parents begin to complain. The parents cannot go to work, particularly wives in low-paid homes. Therefore, the pressure to pay up mounts because of the large number of people involved when schools are closed. This indignation is bound to be stronger in a place such as Haringey where the reality is that the education authority, not just the caretakers, is itself on strike against its statutory responsibilities.
We have not suffered from this extreme in the North-East, but in parts of Tyneside there have been severe difficulties. Local education authorities appear to be playing a "cat and mouse" game with the unions, wondering how far they dare go. In Northumberland, all schools have remained open except on the one day of action a fortnight ago. However, I fear that in coming weeks we will become the victims of selective action. I have reason to believe that many people at different levels in Northumberland—caretakers, dinner ladies, teachers, head teachers and those in the education authority—are prepared to use their common sense and to keep schools open. I believe that attitude should be encouraged wherever it occurs.
All hon. Members should ask themselves why it is that people who have worked long and hard in schools and


have become respected there—caretakers and catering staff—are prepared to get involved in harmful action. I have visited many schools and know these people to be of basic, sound common sense. However there is a sense of panic among these people which makes them prey to the proposals of their union. They feel that they will be completely overtaken in the pay race if they do not become involved in militancy. Where should they look for the assurance that they will not be left behind? What can the moderate people among the ancillary staff of schools rally around?
I believe that as a trade union leader no one did greater disservice to his fellow members than Alan Fisher. He went to the Trades Union Congress, and went around the country, saying that pay policy should be got rid of, that he could get his fellow members "the moon" and that low pay would become a thing of the past. The reality is that, whatever increases he achieves for his members, the whole structure of differentials will remain.
Labour Members below the Gangway refer to low pay as if by its mere reference a magic formula emerges upon which we can all agree and by which the problem can be solved. The attitude seems to be "As long as we say 'low pay' we can pay up and settle the dispute." They forget that there is no agreement among trade union members, let alone in this House, on the problem of low pay. There is no agreement between occupational groups. There is no agreement, for example, on the simplest method of solving the problem of low pay, which is that we should all be paid the same. That is the easiest way to deal with low pay. That brings in certain other problems, but if we were all paid the same there would be no problem of low pay, or if there was we would all share it. But if the caretakers and the dinner ladies get a large increase, what will happen to the 35 per cent. pay claim of the NUT? It will be higher still, because differentials must be preserved.
We have heard exactly the same argument with regard to the hospital disputes. How many times have hon. Members heard consultants and nurses say "A hospital porter gets so much, and here am I cutting people open and performing

delicate operations. Surely I am entitled to X per cent. more than a hospital porter"?
Of course, we could abandon differentials. After all, we do so in this place. The chauffeurs and many of the administrative staff are paid more than Members of Parliament. But very few voices in ASLEF, ASTMS or the NUT support such a policy. Even if we managed to reach some modicum of agreement, the fact is that increases which are paid to low-paid workers, and consequential increases above, reflect themselves in the prices, rates and taxes of the low paid, and they finish up no better off. That is madness. It is collective suicide. It is a madness which seems likely to go on if the political parties and the trade unions cannot agree to accept the necessity for some kind of pay policy, one in which people who are prepared to forsake militant action know that the Government will back them up.
The people do not have such an assurance now, and neither have they been given it by the Conservative Opposition. Unless there is that kind of assurance, the tendency to militancy, which I deplore because it will leave people worse off than they are now, will continue. Unless we address ourselves to that problem, it will spread through all areas of the public service and more and more of the innocent, weak and helpless will be hit as a result.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The prescriptions that have been put forward by the Conservative Opposition for the difficulties that we have been facing in recent weeks have been fallacious, for the simple reason that the diagnosis of Conservative Members is wrong. If their prescriptions were followed, the patient would get worse rather than better.
The problem we are facing is a reassessment of the importance of work. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) touched upon it in what he has just said. We must recognise that unpleasant types of work can no longer be low-paid work. The two things can no longer go together. But until now that is the basis we have followed. The assumption has been that if work is nasty and unpleasant it does not deserve much money. That is a proposition which is deeply embedded in our society.
Several hon. Members have said that one of the problems is that of recognising the low paid. But the low paid themselves have no doubt about their plight. If we take a little trouble, we can identify who the low paid are. Generally speaking, one finds that the low paid are those who do the types of work that no one else wants to do. That is the opposite of what ought to be happening in a market economy. If work is unpleasant and undesirable, and there is a shortage of those willing to undertake it, it should he highly paid in order to attract people. That is the logic of the market, if we are interested in the market.
We are short of bus conductors, because that is not attractive work. It is pretty hard work and passengers can be rather rude. Therefore, we have had to increase the pay of bus conductors. The same principles generally apply to the area that we are now considering. As has been said, if we meet the present problems—and we must meet them—on a basis that gives a substantial increase in remuneration to those about whom we are talking, it is quite absurd to suppose that differentials can be maintained and that a 35 per cent. increase, or anything like it, can be sustained on behalf of the teachers.
These facts must be faced. We must get rid of the idea that the consequence of meeting a need at a lower level is that progressive demands must be met right up the scale. This brings us to a difficult problem, because the middle classes are now beginning to learn the lessons of trade unionism. We are now getting militant doctors and pilots. Quickness off the trigger is not confined to shop stewards. Just the other day, a group of pilots took quite sudden and unreasonable action in relation to a problem which ought to have been faced and dealt with across the table. Therefore, we must deal with this question on that basis.
The nostrums that have been put forward by the Conservative Opposition will not cure the problem. I take as an example the secret ballot. I had better declare an interest as a member of the board of management of the National Theatre, which has experienced such a problem. There was a legitimate pay claim from the workers, other than the

actors, in the National Theatre, which over a period of time was the subject of discussions. The increase offered was a reasonable one within the Government's guidelines, and a series of productivity deals were arranged and a package was put forward which seemed to the union negotiators to be a reasonable one. The National Association of Theatrical and Kinematograph Employees—NATKE—is one of the few unions that has in its rule book a clause which provides for a secret ballot to take place, and this proposal was put to a secret ballot. But it did not go through the works committee. It went straight from the trade union to the staff concerned. The works committee recommended against acceptance, and the consequence was that it was decisively thrown out. In fact, the proposition was a reasonable one, yet it was rejected precisely because there was a secret ballot. Had there been no secret ballot, had the proposition gone through the normal procedures, had the negotiators been allowed to do their stuff and then call a union meeting, I believe that there would have been no problem.
What happens when a secret ballot takes place and a proposition is rejected? What happens when the management goes as far as it can, when the union agrees that the proposal is a reasonable one and should go to the work force and the work force turns it down? Where does one go from there? That is the problem about a secret ballot. If the secret ballot rejects a proposal, everyone is then up the creek.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: What it does in essence, and what Conservative Members do not understand because they have never been deeply involved in trade unionism, is that in the process it destroys the art of leadership.

Mr. Jenkins: Precisely. Basically speaking, that is why I am hostile to such things as referendums. They are all right for constitutional change, but they are no good in relation to issues that need to be discussed.
Similarly, a document on trade unionism circulated to Members and entitled "Capital Question" is a load of rubbish, because the issues raised have not been discussed. For instance, that document


states that three out of four people believe that
social secruity payments should not be payable to their families if they join a strike unless it has been voted for by a majorit in a postal ballot.
What nonsense! I have just described what happens when one has a postal ballot. It would not result in any curative action whatever.
I believe that at present there is too much rigidity in pay policy. I believe that a nod should be given by the Secretary of State that the Prime Minister's indications of relaxation apply to those groups of people about whom we are now talking—the caretakers, the ancillary workers, the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. For example, a nod should be given to the Arts Council for it to pass on to the management of the National Theatre that these minor details can be ironed out. If they are ironed out, as far as the National Theatre is concerned, in spite of the secret ballot, we shall get through.
I do not apologise for mentioning this subject. It is within the ambit of the education empire. It may still be possible to reach an agreement without the threatened strike. We must avoid this just as much as we must avoid closing schools. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that there is some flexibility here. With flexibility the issue can be resolved.
No one can be sure what is happening from day to day about the schools, but in my constituency we have so far got through without too many problems. But the Government must realise that a reassessment is taking place of the value of different types of labour. We can no longer assume that the low paid will continue to be low paid. In future the work of the low paid will be assessed as some of the most valuable work needed in the community. When the low paid stop working, we are in much greater trouble than when the high paid stop working. We can manage for a long time without some professional people. We cannot manage for long without the workers who provide the sinews of society. The problem must be treated generally, and there must be a reassessment of the rewards that people receive.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I must first say to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) that we are not talking of politics when we speak of differentials. The matter is much more fundamental, involving statistics and the basic arithmetic of the distribution of incomes. As has been said in this debate, there is no way in which the level of pay of the low paid can be brought up to the national average other than by total equality of incomes. However calculated, with whatever distribution of incomes, in any country or society, the answer will be the same.
Central to this issue is an important and fundamental confusion in our thinking—the confusion between authority and function. Authority is elected or appointed. Those in authority have the right to delegate function. I think it was the Secretary of State who said that the headmasters had copies of the caretakers' keys, but it is the caretakers who have copies of the headmasters' keys.
Parliament has delegated authority by law to county councils and local authorities. Those bodies have delegated authority to the governing bodies of the schools, which in turn have delegated it to the headmasters and teachers. Those who administer the schools have rightly and properly delegated the narrow functions of opening and closing gates, turning boilers on and off and cleaning classrooms to caretakers. Under the laws of our society caretakers have the right to withdraw their labour, and if they do so society is obliged to accept only one thing narrowly and specifically—that is, the collapse of the function that they were authorised to undertake, and nothing else.
Today we are facing a claim that has been widely exercised, not only by caretakers but by many others, to extend from a narrow function the right to decide authority over a broad range of activities in our affairs, whether in a factory, the National Health Service or a school. As I see it, social activities and therefore social obstruction are involved.
In the House we are well served by a distinguished body of senior servants of the House who are the badge men. They have the function of opening, closing and locking the doors of this Chamber. That function is delegated to them from this


House of Commons through Mr. Speaker via the Serjeant at Arms. If we found these doors locked, would we accept that it was the proper exercise of the authority of the badge men to deny us the right to exercise our proper constitutional activities in this Chamber to debate the major issues of State? I do not believe that there is a Member of the House who would not insist that the doors were opened and ask Mr. Speaker to make the Chamber available. That is the essence of the matter.
In The Daily Telegraph today Mr. David Hart, on behalf of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that written safeguards must be secured from employers so that heads may be indemnified against all responsibility. That is utter poppycock. It is not the employers but the unions and the caretakers who should accept the responsibility. He goes on to say that action might be taken by militant pickets against those who unlock strike-bound schools. That is an intolerable sentiment. Such action would be criminal, and criminal action is rightly and properly dealt with by the criminal law.
He goes on to describe as the "wild men of Borneo" people who believe that it is a moral and statutory obligation of those responsible for schools to ensure that in all possible circumstances they should be opened. If they are the wild men of Borneo, so, indeed, am I. We do not need Mr. Hart's interpretation of the law. These people need no protection because they have the law on their side. That is all that anyone in this country needs.
This situation developed for the first time quite conspicuously in my constituency. To my great regret, it is to reassert itself there tomorrow, where 16 out of 72 schools are apparently to close. I admire and congratulate the headmasters and school authorities who have decided to open their schools, and I regret that 16 have decided to close.
Last week I put five specific questions to the Prime Minister outlining the difference between function and authority. I await his reply. Function must not be confused with authority. If it is confused, the authority of the State and all that depends on it and flows from it will inevitably and irrevocably be harmed.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: This debate should be renamed. It should be called "disruption of education services as a result of inadequate wages to school ancillary staff and caretakers." Anyone who has worked in a school—and I do not think that anyone in this House has done so for longer than I have—knows that that is an absolute truth. When the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who seems to know as little about this matter as he does about other things, said that this situation was due to Government policy, he was right. Of course it is. It is due as well to Opposition policy. The unity of the two Front Benches has kept down the wages of poverty-stricken people.
In the debate on the economy last week the Shadow Chancellor was asked what he would give to the low paid. He hurled across the Floor the information that he would give nothing. That was his answer. Do the Tories really think that working people will go on with misery wages? Does anybody think about their children who for all these years have been poverty stricken? The people who have vast wages are telling the poverty stricken to stop being greedy. These are the realities of life.
The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) applauded those caretakers who disregard the instructions of their unions and keep the schools open. He will applaud very few caretakers. He said that opening the schools would help the children. How little he knows and how much less he understands the reality. His advice would deepen and intensify the whole problem. Perhaps that is what he wants. Perhaps the Opposition and their paid and kept servile press, radio and television want to deepen the problem.
By agreement with the other unions, headmasters and teachers have the right to cross the picket lines but not to do other people's work. If they go into a school with no cook, no cleaners, no dinner women, no heating, no caretakers and where the supply unions are sympathetically inclined to those on strike, they have the instructions from the NUT as to what they should do. Those instructions read:
Where action is being taken, the cardinal principle involved is that the NUT members


should not undertake duties or functions normally undertaken by members of NUPE, the G and MWU and the T and GWU who are on strike. This means that NUT members should not, for example, start up central heating boilers or clean classrooms in the absence of cleaners.
The instruction continues:
Where the caretaker is on strike and will not therefore be available to open the school on the day of the strike, no NUT member should unlock the school. The union would expect that where the caretaker is not available to open the school, the school would have to be closed on that day.
The Opposition have talked as if that ruling did not exist. I warn them and my own Front Bench that there is no solution to this problem without a major offer of cash on the table to these poor people. They are well meaning, well behaved and orderly people who have practically never been on strike. The crocodile tears of the Opposition almost make me weep. The reality is that only cash on the table will solve the strike, because these people need that money. Tame interviews on radio and television with people who give the answers that are expected will not solve the problem. The policy of the Opposition which would give nothing to the low paid will deepen the crisis. The intensity of the Opposition's fervour in their backwardness and reaction is steadily antagonising more and more people.
I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends to give more money to these people, because that is the reality that will stop picketing and striking and solve the problem.

6.36 p.m.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: rose—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Put him right, Rhodes.

Dr. Boyson: I do not wish to deal at any length with the figures of disruption which we already know and which were dealt with adequately by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). In my constituency of Brent the schools will close for another three days tomorrow. They were out for between a week and 10 days in November, and for one day last week. We must also bear in mind the fact that there is a risk of further disruption when the teachers put in their pay claim. We could solve one problem and then move into

another. There have been a number of NUT strikes around the country over class sizes and other matters. It is becoming almost an epidemic in all sections of the education community.
I draw the attention of the House to the NUT strike in Liverpool on 17 January. That was a half-day strike against the form of secondary reorganisation there. It was said by someone on behalf of the NUT that the strikers were "breaking new ground". It certainly is breaking new ground when anyone comes out on strike to disagree with the policy of the elected authority in the area. If that is breaking new ground, I have a lot more sympathy with some of the caretakers for the ground that they are breaking.
The result of these sporadic strikes is very serious for children. First, there is the breaking of habits of work. It takes a long time to train children for regular study inside school. School is not a natural society. Most children like to go outside and go swimming when the sun shines and it is warm. They do not particularly want to be in school from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. It takes a lot of training in infant and primary schools to build up regular work habits. Once these habits are interrupted, the whole pattern of learning breaks down. Everyone knows that at the end of a summer holiday it takes time to get people back to work again.
Also it is very difficult to enforce good school attendance when the truant officer stops a child one day for playing truant and takes him back to school, and the next day he catches that same child who tells him that there is no school because it is the teachers who are playing truant. This kind of thing does not develop good citizenship. It does not help if children grow up seeing teachers on strike one week, caretakers on strike the next week, and no school meals the following week. They will get a very strange idea of adult maturity.
In addition, some hon. Members have already referred to the interruption to O-level and A-level studies and the mock examinations leading up to them. One cannot learn mathematics and languages at home. It is all very well to take a history book home and read it from cover to cover. That may work, but one cannot do the same in mathematics or languages and certain other subjects. We


have already heard at Question Time today the difficulty facing language students in this country. All this will be worsened by this break.
Another result is the effect on the one-parent family and the working mother. This is very difficult. I have had large numbers of letters about this from people in my constituency. Mothers who are single parents have the greatest difficulty in caring for their children if the school is closed. I read in the paper the other day of a case where a woman lost her job because she had to be off duty sporadically to look after her child. If the Minister has special knowledge of this case, we shall be fascinated to hear it. I would be very surprised if there were not other cases as well.
We feel so strongly about this matter that we shall push it to the vote tonight. It is a very sad commentary on our society when children are used as pawns in the wage battle. In international law for a long time there was an attempt to get an understanding that certain non-combatants and others should not be involved in warfare. It seems to me that, in a civilised society, children and the sick should not be involved in whatever battles there are. It seems to me that it is a test of civilised society whether we say that children are beyond these struggles, and so are the sick and the handicapped.

Mr. Carlisle: In the year of the child.

Dr. Boyson: As my hon. and learned Friend says, in the year of the child we have had the day of the strikes.
One of the saddest things has been that we have had one headmaster in a county outside London who considered that it was strike-breaking when little children brought sandwiches for their lunch. I just wonder how far society has dropped when it is felt to be strike-breaking for children to bring sandwiches to school in that way.
If we lessen or worsen the standards of education of our children, we are sowing the seeds of trouble in the future. It is not unusual for that to happen under the present Labour Government. The oil which could keep us going for a long time is being used to carry exceedingly high

Government expenditure at present. Similarly, if we do not get the children back to school consistently throughout the year, we shall suffer for it in education standards in the future. In the infant, primary and secondary schools children are suffering, particularly in pockets around the country, often working-class pockets. That is certainly so in parts of Brent, where for the second or third time since September last the schools will very largely be closed tomorrow.
My hon. and learned Friend raised certain questions with the Secretary of State. Section 1 of the 1944 Act says specifically that the Secretary of State has a general duty
to promote the education of the people of England and Wales
and there are provided in section 99, and in other sections, the means of enforcing that duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has said, it is not just the provision of school buildings which is provided for in the Act, for it refers to the actual schooling. That applies to the question of the number of days. I had a note from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on the question of the 400 sessions. There is a reference there to "some unavoidable cause". It depends upon whether one thinks these continual strikes are an avoidable or an unavoidable cause; but it would seem to me that that is a responsibility, which may have to be tested in law, for the local education authorities, and ultimately for the Secretary of State, to ensure that since September up to the July holidays the children in those schools have had 400 sessions of education.
I am delighted to know that in the area of Stockport teachers are prepared to cut down some of the occasional holidays, to do extra teaching for the children there. All credit to the profession and to their dedication in doing so. But there is a responsibility on the local authorities and on the Minister in this case which may have to be tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) today and others at other times have raised the question of enforcing this basis of 400 sessions—one can almost say 400 years with the length of time this has gone on—of education throughout the year.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn pressed the Secretary of State, and I press her again, on the question of enforcing the opening of schools as part of that responsibility. Will she back headmasters who open their schools irrespective of what the authorites say, and will she back teachers who go in, irrespective of what is said by anyone in the area? There was some rhetoric at the end of her speech which may have re-established her in certain parts of the Labour Party, but the question is—are we going to get the children back to school? That is the only issue. Is she prepared to give a lead in a climate of opinion? I realise that there can be no question of direction, but will she indicate that she and the Government will openly back headmasters who open schools and similarly teachers who are prepared to go in to keep schools open?
It seems to me that the attitude of the Government on this question is part of the supine attitude of the Government at present in face of the disruption of organised labour which we see throughout the country. Their attitude on schools is the same as the attitude elsewhere whereby the Labour Party, particularly by concessions time and time again and by the so-called social contract, has bred a trade union tiger which it can no longer control and which has turned upon those who have fed it over the last four or five years.
It is the Government's inability to stand up to that and their appeasement of it which is causing our problems, particularly at present. A thought occurred to me last night—[Interruption.] I wish that even one thought would occur to certain hon. Members on the other side from time to time. I will not mention specifically the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), with whom we spar from time to time and whose occasional thought enlivens our debates and discussions in the Chamber and in Committees in which we spend our time.
It would have been very interesting to know who was the first person to refuse to open a door. I do not know about the hon. Member for Hillsborough, but certainly as long as I was headmaster I always made certain that the school door was opened in good time. If a caretaker had influenza, the school was still open

and somebody saw that the boilers were stoked. All that was arranged so as to keep things going. It would have been interesting if the person connected with that union had been the porter at No. 10 Downing Street and he had decided that on that day he would not open it; we should then have seen whether the Government would have done no more about that than they have done about this, with the Prime Minister standing outside the door with his Ministers saying they could not open the door or carry on the Government, so that in law as in reality there was no Government of this country. That would have been fascinating, because it would have brought about the general election for which we all hope. My sadness is that it is the children who are suffering, not the Labour Government, who could have cleared the whole thing up by proper action.
The proposed topic for our debate this afternoon is the disruption of the education service and we on this side of the House feel very strongly on this issue; and certainly parents feel very strongly on this issue. If any hon. Members opposite represent constituencies where children are not able to attend school, the views they have put forward this afternoon will be found to be very different from those of parents. The toad knows where the harrow cuts. We do not feel that the Government are giving a right and fair lead, and we will divide tonight because we believe that we are speaking and voting today on the right of the children of England and Wales to have a proper and a full education.

6.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): May I first apologise to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend from the latter part of this debate due to the illness of a close relative. She has asked me to make that point particularly to the House and to say that she regrets that she is unable to be here.
A point which has consistently escaped most hon. Members opposite who have contributed to this debate, a point which does not usually escape them and one which they usually labour almost to an excessive degree, is that it is local education authorities and not my Department which runs schools. It is local education


authorities which are the employers and it is those authorities which are charged with the duty of assessing the local situation and taking their decisions on that situation. Normally, hon. Members opposite are most keen to emphasise the role of local education authorities.
Clearly, this leaves some considerable role and responsibility for my right hon. Friend, and I must tell hon. Gentlemen quite frankly that it struck me that they were both surprised and dismayed to learn from her this afternoon just how considerable have been the initiatives she has taken to try to bring about an end to this dispute whenever it has taken place. My right, hon. Friend has met representatives of trade unions and of authorities and has taken steps to see that Her Majesty's inspectorate is in touch with local situations, with the remit of doing what it can with the regional committees to keep schools open wherever possible. Although, as I have indicated and as she indicated in her speech, she is not a negotiating party between an authority or authorities and the union involved, nevertheless she has done everything she can to foster agreement and to foster regional arrangements which will minimise to the greatest possible extent the disruption that children in some schools are facing.

Mr. Carlisle: The Minister says that the Secretary of State has left it to the authorities. Will she tell me whether she was prepared to give local education authorities any advice when they asked her how they were meant to keep their schools open?

Miss Jackson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend said that she had suggested to the local authority associations that they should do all they could to find alternative accommodation. That advice is being carried out in many areas and is minimising the disruption that children are suffering, whether because of the general closure of their schools or because they are facing public examinations. My right hon. Friend showed clearly in her speech the steps that she has taken.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was rather scornful about the legal advice that the Department has been receiving on section 8 and the application

of section 99. Were I not more polite than he, I could be equally rude about the legal advice that he has given the House. We understand that it is not the case that sections 8 and 99 would have the effect that he claims. If they did, it would be a different matter, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) clearly indicated, the section of the 1944 Act that might have been of use to the Secretary of State in such a difficulty is one that was effectively nullified by the Tameside decision which so many Conservative Members welcomed.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) spoke about the situation in Haringey. I presume that he did so because the schools in his constituency are not affected. The hon. Gentleman said, however, that he has a family involvement in Haringey. I was at a loss to follow many of his remarks because he made a number of references to secondary picketing and we are not dealing with that question.
I also found it hard to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He said that the action of the unions was perhaps not spontaneous. It may be that in his constituency he feels that the action is not supported by union members, but I have never known industrial action to be supported to such an extent by members of the unions involved.
The hon. Member said that he thought there was a sense of panic among the union members involved and that this was contributing to their militancy. That may be the case, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman why he and his party contributed to that sense of panic by voting with the Conservatives against sanctions which were a cornerstone of the Government's incomes policy and why, therefore, he does not feel that he bears a share of the blame for any sense of panic which employees in the public sector feel at the prospect of runaway wage gains.
Having made that decision, the hon. Member now seems to be arguing that there should be acceptance of pay policy. There has been a certain amount of inconsistency in the attitude of the Liberal Party and I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are to display a further and even more surprising inconsistency later this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) spoke at length about the value of the work done by the workers involved in the dispute. I am sure that we all recognise the value of that work and that we are making ever greater demands on all the unions involved in our education service, not just on the members of the unions involved in the present dispute.
The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) quoted the comments of Mr. Hart, the secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. We take many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Hart is reported as saying that the question of indemnity
is a matter between head teachers and their local education authorities … but our immediate reactions are … head teachers (and other teachers) have certain responsibilities in relation to their schools at all times
though it was accepted that they should not be asked to
incur exceptional and abnormal liabilities.
Certainly, if Mr. Hart has been correctly quoted—and one must always enter that caveat—he was going a little far in his arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said that what was needed to solve the dispute was cash on the table. I take that point, but I do not believe that the dispute will be settled solely by cash on the table. It may bring an end to the present dispute, but I am not so sure that it will bring an end to the problems that will ensue, even for those involved in the dispute.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) gave us a list of the attributes of good schooling, including regular work habits, and he referred to the problems of truancy and the difficulties pupils face in trying to work for examinations. We all recognise and acknowledge that those problems will inevitably occur when such a dispute takes place. They are problems with which we must all be seriously concerned.
However, when I searched for the solutions that the hon. Member for Brent, North and the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) were offering, I found that material was a little thin on the ground. The hon. and learned Member said very little about what solution

might be offered by the Conservative Party, other than to give advice about the legal situation—advice which we do not believe to be valid.
The hon. and learned Member said that, if we were to rid ourselves of these problems, we needed a total change of attitude. To some extent, I agreed with him. I assume that he was saying that we need a society with a more unselfish attitude and greater concern for the difficulties that our actions create for others.
But who are the Opposition to criticise people on the grounds that they are putting their private interest above that of the general public? The Conservative Party has always encouraged individuals to put their own selfish interests above the interests of others. The Conservative Party has brought about a return to free collective bargaining. The Conservative Party always encourages people to ask for more—particularly when they already have a good deal. The hon. Member for Hornsey asked what sort of society we were becoming. I will tell him. We are becoming a society in which far too many people are attempting to adopt the philosophy of the Conservative Party.
The hon. Member for Brent, North and the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn told us nothing about the approach of the Conservative Party to low pay, let alone anything about their approach to this pay claim. However, we can divine one or two clues. We know that the Conservative Party stands for massive cuts in public expenditure. That is obviously not much encouragement to the lower-paid workers that they will receive fair treatment from the Conservatives.
I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough that the Shadow Chancellor conveyed the view that low-paid workers in the public sector could expect nothing from the Conservative Party, but perhaps the best hint was given in a report in Saturday's Daily Express. The article dealt, I grant, with the hospital crisis, but the Leader of the Opposition said that she would like to see in the hospital service—and we are entitled to look at her remarks as a possible Conservative answer in other areas—a cut in the number of ancillary workers, with those who are left taking a bigger share of the pay kitty. No wonder the hon. Member for Brent, North


and the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn did not dwell at length on their solutions to the crisis. It is either to allow to leave or to sack enough members of the ancillary services to enable a pay settlement to be financed.
Our approach throughout the debate and during the past two weeks has been to try to do what we believe will help. My right hon. Friend listed the steps that she has taken to try to bring an end to the disruption in our schools and to minimise it where it exists. We have succeeded in resisting the suggestions of Conservative Members that we should go in for publicity-worthy comments or

take action that would exacerbate the dispute rather than help to minimise it.

In the end, the dispute will be solved, whether by cash on the table or in other ways, only by negotiation and by those involved getting round the table and reaching agreement. I believe, as my right hon. Friend believes and as I hope the House will affirm, that our way of tackling the crisis will help to minimise the effects of the dispute and, ultimately, help to solve it. The Conservatives' way would merely make it worse.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 276.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): In accordance with precedent, Mr. Speaker has not selected the six months' amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). Mr. Speaker has selected the motion standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) for an Instruction to leave out clause 39. He has not selected the motion for an Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett),
to leave out any provisions which alter the existing law.
The motion to commit clause 39 to a Committee of the whole House, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Perry Barr, is in order and will be called, if there is time to do so, under the provisions of the 10 o'clock business motion. If the Instruction to leave out clause 39 is agreed to, however, the motion to commit that clause to a Committee of the whole House will of course fall and cannot be called.
May I suggest that it might be for the convenience of hon. Members if there were a reasonably short debate—it is entirely up to hon. Members—on the Second Reading, and that when that Question has been disposed of the Instruction should thereafter occupy the attention of the House?

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
With the exception of clause 39, relating to the notice of processions, which is important and is moderate in scope and with which I should like to deal in more detail later, the Bill is almost entirely a consolidation measure with the addition of minor provisions relating to the National Exhibition Centre, the control of foxes, acupuncture and night cafes.
The reorganisation of local government effected by the Local Government Act 1972 required provision to rationalise the large number of Private Acts in the old

areas inherited by the new. To achieve this, section 262 provided that, with certain exceptions, all local legislation shall cease in 1984 in non-metropolitan counties and in 1979 in the metropolitan counties. The effect of section 262 of the 1972 Act was therefore to oblige all new authorities to review Local Act provisions in force in their areas and, in cases where any required and justified re-enactment, to promote or secure the promotion of Private Bills to re-enact what would otherwise be repealed in 1979 or 1984.
Accordingly, the local legislation comprised in this Bill will cease to have effect in 1979. The Second Reading debate tonight gives probably the last opportunity for the Bill to receive approval and to pass on the Committee stage for detailed examination and consideration of petitions on points of detail with sufficient time for that process to be carried out properly. You mentioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) relating to committal of clause 39 to a Committee of the whole House was in order. It may be helpful if I indicate that I and my hon. Friends would have no objection, if the Bill were given a Second Reading, to this clause being subsequently committed to a Committee of the whole House, so that it might be considered in detail in the Chamber.
The first task of the local authorities has been to establish which of the Local Act powers were in regular use by the county council's predecessors to ensure that these can be continued in a satisfactory manner. To assist in this task, the Department of the Environment introduced the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Although this Act was helpful in many respects, it did not go far enough, and the district councils will require a number of Local Act powers comprised in the Bill, not re-enacted in the general law.
In the county of the West Midlands there are seven districts. The 1972 Act has produced in some districts a patchwork of local law since reorganisation in view of boundary changes where the area application does not always coincide with the present local authority areas. Some district councils therefore have powers they cannot exercise throughout their areas. Some aspects of this legislation


are out of date, either as a result of subsequent general law changes or because of these boundary changes. In the West Midlands, the review of local legislation which followed the 1965 local government reorganisation has made this task easier. The Black Country authorities—Dudley, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Warley and West Bromwich, the latter two now combined as Sandwell—consolidated their existing Acts in 1969. All these Acts are similar both in drafting and content.
The city of Coventry and the city of Birmingham districts experienced boundary changes in 1974 and have a number of Local Acts dating from the last century. In 1974, a joint district and county working party was set up consisting of both district and county members together with their legal officers. The powers which the districts required to be re-enacted were first determined and then referred to the working party for study and discussion. Following this, a draft was circulated to the Government Departments and their recommendations, where appropriate, have been met.
Following approval on behalf of the district councils, it was agreed that the county council should promote the Bill. I stress "Following approval on behalf of the district councils". When the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) moves his Instruction he may like to bear in mind that a Liberal member, Councillor Tilsley, was a member of the committee which considered this legislation at all stages.
The Bill consists of 132 clauses and five schedules and covers wide areas of requirements in respect of local powers, including open spaces and municipal property, highways, public health, public order and public safety, fire precautions, storage of flammable materials, night cafes and entertainment clubs, licensing of public entertainments, finance, miscellaneous and general matters. The Bill includes a number of provisions at the request of specified districts, including Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton. To all of these I believe there can be no objection.
I turn now to clause 39, which provides:
No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district

unless at least seven days before the procession starts to pass through any street
a notice has been served on the district council and the chief officer of police. Dealing only with this part of the clause, the House should know that further consultations have taken place with the police authority, which is as anxious as anyone that this clause should impose only as reasonable an obligation as possible. As a result, I am authorised by the promoters of the Bill to undertake that at any subsequent or Committee stage this clause will be amended so that the requirement as to notice will be reduced from seven days to three days. It is on this basis that the clause should be considered.
The clause will therefore require that at least three days before the procession starts to pass through any street a person organising or conducting the procession shall serve on the council and the chief officer of police a notice stating,

"(a) the route by which, and, the date and the time on and at which it is intended, that is should pass;
(b) the nature of the procession to which the notice relates;
(c) the name of a person responsible for organising the procession."

It will be seen that in subsection (2),
If any procession passes through any street in a district by a route or at a time which has not been stated in a notice relating to that procession delivered in accordance with subsection (1) above, except in accordance with any directions given by the chief officer of police under section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 or other directions given by the senior police officer … any person organising or conducting the procession shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
I wish to emphasise strongly that under subsection (3) this requirement about giving notice of a procession will not apply to
a procession commonly or customarily held by members of a charitable body.
Parades and processions which are customarily organised by the Boy Scouts the Boys Brigade, the Girls Life Brigade or the Salvation Army and similar bodies will be exempt from the requirement to give notice.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: They are not trade unionists.

Mr. Eyre: In earlier legislation a similar provision requiring notice of street


processions applies in West Bromwich, Smethwick, Wolverhampton, Oldbury, Wednesbury, Willenhall, Sutton Coldfield —which is now part of Birmingham—and Coventry. The periods of notice required varied from 24 hours to 48 hours when the requirements of that notice were re-enacted in 1959 in local authority Acts relating to successor corporations. In large parts of the metropolitan county, there have been similar requirements in the past.
I shall explain the strong reasons for clause 39. They are in addition to the fact that similar provision is in force in parts of the West Midlands county council area. The purpose of the clause is to enable people to exercise their right to take part in organised processions, peacefully and in good order.
Processions are part of our democratic right. Reasonable notice enables the police to protect the procession, to protect the people who are not involved in the procession and to regulate traffic in the interests of the marchers as well as the public who seek to move with the minimum reasonable inconvenience in public and private vehicles.
If the police are to carry out all their duties to the public, one must understand the difficulties that are caused by the total demand on their services. The West Midlands police force is seriously undermanned to the extent of between 10 and 11 per cent. That means that sometimes assistance must be sought from neighbouring forces. That takes time to arrange. Transport and catering must be organised.
In addition, one must remember that there are five first division football clubs in the county. That means that on any Saturday—which is the usual day for processions—at least two major matches will have to be policed. In 1977 there were 232 such matches.
One must bear those factors in mind when one considers the record of processions since 1 April 1974. Since that day 129 marches have been recorded in the West Midlands police area.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I understand the reasons why the police seek these additional powers to control marches and demonstrations. But those reasons apply with the same force to those organisations which are specifically

exempted. What is the difference between the policing that is required for the massed bands of the Boy Scouts and that required for a demonstration by half a dozen members of a trades council?

Mr. Eyre: I shall try to describe several incidents which have occurred in Birmingham which are not associated with the massed bands of the Boy Scouts or similar events but which have a direct bearing on the reasons that I am advancing in support of the clause.
The 129 marches vary from church parades to political demonstrations. It has not been possible to ascertain the degree of inconvenience and additional work to the police involved in the preparation and policing of the marches. However, it is known that some of the marches involved considerable public disorder. They provide the answer to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
On 21 November 1974 there was the funeral of James Patrick McDade at Coventry which will be prominent in the memories of hon. Members representing Coventry constituencies.

Mr. Lawrence: That was not a trade union demonstration.

Mr. Eyre: It was not.
On 28 February 1976 there was a National Front march in Coventry.

Mr. Lawrence: That was not a trade union demonstration.

Mr. Eyre: On 15 May 1976 there was a National Front march to Winson Green prison. On 8 September 1976 there was a march by Rastafarians on a police station. On 25 September 1976 there was a National Front march at Walsall. On 26 September 1977 there was a Birmingham trades council committee march against racialism. At the same time there was a National Front march. On 15 August 1977 there was a march by various bodies in the Ladywood by-election in addition to a National Front meeting.

Mr. William Wilson: Can the hon. Member say whether proceedings were taken against the organisers of any of those marches?

Mr. Eyre: If I continue my speech, the answer may become apparent.
On 18 February 1978 there was a march by Birmingham trades council at Digbeth and a National Front meeting. On 11 March 1978 there was a march by the Wolverhampton anti-racist committee. On 18 November 1978 there was a movement associated with a meeting to welcome Mrs. Gandhi.
In each of those processions the police became aware of them before they took place and were able to organise themselves accordingly. In spite of that, arrests and damage took place on a considerable scale. The possibility that ony one of those processions could have taken place without the police having adequate time to prepare is little short of horrifying.
Hon. Members might understand the problems which occur frequently in the West Midlands if I refer in particular to two marches. The first was on 15 May 1976. It was a previously notified and arranged march and demonstration by members of an anti-Fascist committee to Winson Green to counter a meeting held outside by the National Front. In order to prevent the two factions meeting, many police officers were engaged. However, a group of about 200 broke away from the rally and made a determined effort to break the police cordon which prevented access to the National Front supporters.
As a result of that attack, the following occurred: 69 police officers were injured, 16 of whom subsequently reported sick unable to continue with their duties, two police horses were injured, damage was caused to three police vans, three motorcycles and two panda cars, and there were 13 cases of assorted damage to police equipment and uniform. There were 28 arrests for a variety of offences, the majority being under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936. Other offences included the possession of an offensive weapon, assault on police, damage and causing grievous bodily harm to police officers. Without prior notice the meeting might have been much worse.
Another example that I should report in more detail concerns an incident that took place on 18 February 1978.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: Far be it from me to throw a spanner in the works during the hon. Gentleman's speech, but, since he has referred to the meeting that took place on 18

February 1978 at Digbeth, will he confirm that the proceedings in the Birmingham Crown court last week relating to the demonstration and violence that took place have ceased? Will he therefore confirm that the matter is now not covered by the sub judice rule?

Mr. Eyre: I do not believe that the proceedings are now carrying on. Therefore, I assume that the matter is not subject to the subjudice rule.

Mr. Rooker: The case was proceeding in the Birmingham Crown court last week. There is a note at the end of the report that I have to the effect that the case is still proceeding. I do not know whether the case has finished but it was proceeding last week, as is shown in the article that appeared in the Birmingham Evening Mail.

Mr. Eyre: I should be as anxious as the hon. Gentleman always is to try to avoid contravening any rule attached to the sub judice instructions. However, I can refer to the outline of the circumstances, which will not reflect in any way upon the conduct of any named individual.
A meeting was held by the National Front at Digbeth city hall. Various organisations under the umbrella of the Anti Nazi League held a separate march and demonstration in opposition to the National Front meeting. During that time an attack was launched on the police lines as people sought to gain access to the National Front meeting.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is making assertions about people launching attacks and we have already had a question about the sub judice rule. May I have a ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If, indeed, the case is still under consideration in the courts, the details of it cannot be discussed. I understood that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) had left that issue in case the sub judice rule obtains.

Mr. Eyre: I accept entirely the argument of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely say that


as a result of that incident 58 police officers were injured, three members of the public were injured and 33 people were arrested for a variety of offences. Damage was caused and serious charges were laid involving a number of matters. I quote those facts to indicate the seriousness of the issue.

Mrs. Wise: I shall check Hansard carefully. The hon. Gentleman said that attacks were launched. He named the Anti Nazi League. It seems that he is casting aspersions on members of the Anti Nazi League by linking what he says was an attack by them with an account of injuries and damage done. If that is in order, I am extremely surprised. I am convinced that it is grossly improper.

Mr. Eyre: I note the hon. Lady's intervention. However, the purpose of the sub judice rule is to prevent us from commenting upon the details of a case in a manner that goes far beyond a mere outline of the particulars, which have been published on a number of occasions, of the sort that I have mentioned briefly in seeking to establish the seriousness of the incident.
Had the march been notified to the police, proper arrangements could have been made to route it. The majority of the damage occurred when a number of people broke away from the lines of the procession.

Mr. John Sever: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his specific argument? Let us suppose that any group had given whatever notice the hon. Gentleman may see fit to hold a demonstration, march or some sort of public expression. Let us suppose that a large crowd came unknown and unexpectedly to protest against the demonstration or march. Surely the provision that he has outlined would not necessarily cover that problem. How would he overcome that?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that certain degrees of force may be mustered that may overwhelm whatever strength is available to the police on certain occasions.

Mr. Sever: The other people, if we may categorise them in that way, would not

have given notice that they were to be present.

Mr. Eyre: That is possible. We may never assume that everybody will observe the law. However, it is necessary to establish the requirement that those who seek to organise processions are under an obligation to give notice so that the police may make adequate arrangements to carry out their duties—to protect the marchers, to protect onlookers and to protect those who may be concerned in the way that I have described. Surely we must in logic be prepared to accept the idea that we should put the obligation upon those who organise such events. That seems entirely reasonable and proper. I emphasise that if the police had had notice of the march the route would have been established and the police would have been in a much better position to prevent untoward events from taking place. We should start from that reasonable basis and anticipate that the great mass of people will observe the requirements of the law.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman still has not answered the question put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson). Was notice given in all the instances that he is talking about? If it was not given, it does not necessarily mean that if it had been given violence would not have occurred. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that if notice had been given the police would have been present in sufficient numbers and that the incidents to which he has referred would not have taken place? If he is, that is clearly not right.

Mr. Eyre: I am saying that notice was not given of the procession that took place at Digbeth. It would have been a distinct advantage if the obligation had existed. Had it been observed and had the police been given notice of the intended march and route, a great deal of trouble would very likely have been avoided. The police would have had a better chance to organise the proceedings.
I add that five private motor cars and one ambulance were damaged at an approximate cost of £800. Twelve business premises were reported damaged at a total estimated cost of £1,925. Considerable damage was done in that locality and fear


and apprehension were caused to the people living there.
It would have been much more reasonable if the police had received notice and then been able to be present along the route in sufficient numbers to have minimised risks. I believe that the serious nature of these incidents, and particularly the two which I have described in some detail, underlines the need for notice to be given so that the police are able to make adequate arrangements for the essential services needed to guarantee the peaceful conduct of marches.
I emphasise that, while the democratic rights of marchers are recognised, it is also necessary that the rights of other people to go about their business peacefully, and in good order, must also be recognised and protected, so that disruption, damage and inconvenience are kept to a minimum. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will bear this practical point in mind when he speaks, because I believe that he will suggest that the Scarman report revealed a situation which made the proposal contained in this Bill unnecessary. The hon. and learned Gentleman must understand that the Scarman report was made in 1974 and the incidents I have described took place after that. One must understand the changing situation.
Paragraph 129 of the Scarman report states:
It cannot be said too often that our law assumes that people will be tolerant, self-disciplined, and willing to co-operate with the police.
Sadly, the incident I have described makes me question whether elements in society share that tolerant view. I think one has to give the police reasonable opportunity to deal with situations of that kind. The Scarman report referred to the law of most Western European States, including France, West Germany, Italy and Holland, and acknowledged that those countries stipulated the requirement of notice.
Scarman said:
It is difficult to argue therefore that it represents an unacceptable encroachment upon liberty.
That is the view that I take of this situation. It is necessary therefore to emphasise that the notice requirement for street processions does not apply to

assemblies or gatherings. Democratic rights in those circumstances are not affected in any way. The words of the clause are:
No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street.
The essence of the requirement is the movement of a body of people from A to B because activity of that kind in such circumstances as I have described gives rise to the special need for police supervision.
Secondly, no offence is created of taking part in a procession. The only person who could conceivably be prosecuted in the event of an offence is the organiser of a procession who had neglected to give notice to the police. Thirdly, the procession which is not organised is a spontaneous procession. For instance, if on the Coventry Road, Birmingham there was an accident involving a child and a number of distressed mothers who saw the accident decided to form a procession to go to the police station or to the local authority to protest, that would be a spontaneous activity which would not be caught by the clause.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: A number of mothers or a number of any other people, unless they are gifted with great telepathic powers, do not decide simultaneously to march in protest to the police station. Almost certainly one mother will say to the others "Look, girls, we have had enough of this, let us go to the police station." Does not she then become the organiser of the march?

Mr. Eyre: I think that there are limitations in number which apply to spontaneity. I think in the incident that I have described it would be natural for a small number of human beings, having witnessed the incident, spontaneously to go to the police station together.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way, but we want to pursue this. How many is "a small number"? I once saw an incident outside a factory when a man went to the management to put in a wage claim. For this heinous crime he was instantly dismissed, whereupon all the other men and girls in the factory walked out and marched to the company offices one and a half miles away to protest. There were about 230 of them. Would the hon.


Gentleman say that that was "a small number"?

Mr. Eyre: I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question because it depends on the circumstances at the time. But I emphasise that when there is a spontaneous demonstration it is not possible to identify the organiser.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The other point that must be borne in mind is the duration of the demonstration. I have in mind a particular spontaneous demonstration which happened in Bristol Road, Birmingham after a child had been killed there recently. That demonstration lasted about 10 minutes. It was quite effective because the local press picked it up. I ask for my hon. Friend's guidance on this point. Might not the question of duration of a demonstration have an effect?

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend makes a very good point because the example that she quotes involving a short time contains the element of spontaneity.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is making the point we would like to make. Will he point out to us the line in clause 39 which gives this exemption for spontaneity, because I think that that would allay some of the fears of hon. Members on this side of the House? I have read the clause very carefully and I can see no reference to the number of people in a procession or its duration. How can one define spontaneity? Could the hon. Gentleman tell us which line in the clause covers this point?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is raising what are really substantial Committee points. I made it clear at the beginning that I would have no objection to this clause being committed to the Floor of the House and being examined in detail. The point I am trying to make—which is one of principle—is that if there is a spontaneous demonstration where there is no organiser, this clause cannot apply. I emphasise that the only event caught by the clause is a procession which has been organised. All that the clause will do, as amended, is to require three days' notice of that event by the organiser. If a person takes upon himself the obligation to organise such a procession, he

will be caught by the clause. I accept that it may be desirable to go further into detail to try to determine the precise circumstances in which these principles apply. However, I emphasise that the clause does not extend anyone's power to prohibit or regulate processions.
I have spoken longer than I intended and longer than I told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that I proposed to take.

Mr. William Wilson: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could help me, because I might have to advise the police in my constituency. Once a fortnight from Coventry station to Coventry City football ground great processions of visiting supporters are organised by the police. We are told that notice has to be given to the police and to the district council. Will it be necessary for the chief superintendent of Coventry police, before organising any procession of visiting football supporters, to give notice to the district council?

Mr. Eyre: Having regard to the hon. Gentleman's legal experience, I should be hesitant about advising him. If the police are organising processions in the way that he described, I do not think that they would have any objection to the requirement that they should give notice to themselves and to the district council.
I have recited a number of serious incidents which have taken place in the Birmingham area during the last four years. Those incidents caused a great deal of concern to citizens. It seems entirely reasonable to them that this clause should be brought into existence to require organisers of substantial events to give notice to the police and to specify the route. It does not seem possible that the police can carry out their wide range of duties with these demands on their strength unless that kind of notice is given. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that the metropolitan county council should have included a power of this kind in the Bill. Similar powers have existed for a number of years in other parts of the country.
I hope that the Bill will succeed in securing a Second Reading. However, I should make it clear that, if it is the wish of the House that clause 39 be examined in detail on the Floor of the House, I


should not only approve but welcome that proposal.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I rise to make what will probably be the shortest speech on Second Reading this evening, because it will take less than one minute.
I wish to make the point for the record that, although I do not intend to debate any of the Bill other than clause 39 on the Instruction, other aspects will probably need to be brought to the attention of the House on Report. I reserve my position and that of my hon. Friends to ensure that, if necessary, other clauses are looked at on Report.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) devoted almost the whole of his Second Reading speech to dealing with the principles involved in and the reasons behind clause 39. Therefore, it might be convenient if I put forward the viewpoint of myself and those who have signed the Instruction on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman has agreed that we should consider this clause as though "three days" rather than "seven days" were inserted. I understand that he has given an undertaking that that will be done in Committee. Therefore, it is important that on Second Reading he should consider this matter further and perhaps be moved to consider the attitude of the West Yorkshire authority, for example, which initially had such a clause in its Bill and dropped it following maturer consideration. I submit to the hon. Gentleman and the promoters of the Bill that it is entirely misconceived.
First, if this provision is necessary from the point of view of public order, it should be carried out nationally, not locally. It is nonsense to suggest that difficulties in Birmingham do not arise in London or that difficulties in Montgomery do not arise in Birmingham.

Mrs. Knight: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: I shall give way to the hon. Lady later.
This matter has been looked at in great depth by a most distinguished judge and there have been representations by a police authority which has great experience of it. After mature consideration by those responsible, including consideration of the position in Northern Ireland, it was decided that virtually very few changes were needed in the Public Order Act 1936. Therefore, it ill becomes the House to consider basic changes in our law through a clause of this kind in what is essentially a Local Bill. When one is lobbied simultaneously by the National Association of Funeral Directors and the National Council for Civil Liberties against a particular clause, one thinks that there must be a great deal in it.

Mrs. Knight: I am interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the undesirability of different rules obtaining in different authorities. I ask him to bear two points in mind. First, there are such things as byelaws. Local authorities make their own byelaws, and different regulations obtain in different areas. That is an accepted part of local government. I do not think that local authorities would lightly give up their right to make their own byelaws.
Secondly, the position of the police can vary from place to place. That in itself should be considered carefully when reaching a judgment on this matter.

Mr. Hooson: With respect, I ask the hon. Lady to reflect on what she said. The hon. Member for Hall Green did not suggest one reason which was peculiar to Birmingham as opposed to London, Manchester or Leeds. He mentioned certain processions which had taken place in Birmingham, but similar processions have also taken place in London. There are football matches in London, Liverpool, and so on.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: I shall not give way. I am answering the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). Byelaws deal with peculiarly local situations. This is not a peculiarly local situation.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hooson: No, I shall not give way. The reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Hall Green for the clause were directed to the national situation. He did not put forward one argument which was not put before Lord Justice Scarman when he was considering the Red Lion Square demonstration.

Mr. Norman Fowler: rose—

Mr. Hooson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
The aim of the clause is clearly to try to prevent the occurrence of violence. That can be the only reason for it. It is in order to maintain law and order, and the maintenance of law and order is a national, not a local, matter. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to do it piecemeal in this way. If we need a change in the law, it should be done nationally.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman missing one of the basic points about the Bill—namely, that it is based upon precedents in the West Midlands? Notice was required in places such as West Bromwich and, indeed, Sutton Coldfield, my own constituency, before it became part of Birmingham. Surely he should take note of that aspect. I realise that he is not a West Midlands Member and therefore does not have a great deal of knowledge of the local area. However, the Bill is based on about seven precedents governing local areas. Surely he must recognise that aspect.

Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Gentleman would inquire about his local area, he would find that paragraph 5 of the statement on behalf of the promoters is misleading. They say that this is, as it were, an accepted state of affairs. But in none of the areas was the seven days' notice required. That is the first point on which paragraph 5 of the statement is entirely wrong. The Birmingham corporation, the Solihull urban district council, the Sutton Coldfield corporation and the Worcestershire county council never had such local provision.
I was chided for not saying enough. I think that I know a little more about the law. I named four of the 11 local government areas that now comprise the West Midlands county. Of the remaining seven, none required seven days' notice. Therefore, the paragraph in the promotional literature is incorrect.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I do not argue that all the areas, including the West Midlands, were affected. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that West Bromwich, Smethwick, Wolverhampton, Oldbury, Wednesbury, Willenhall, Sutton Coldfield and Coventry were involved. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right about the seven days. No one has argued that. But it is argued that a precedent exists for notice being given, A precedent exists for notice of between 24 hours and 48 hours. What the hon. and learned Gentleman originally said about special circumstances does not apply.

Mr. Hooson: The promoters of this Bill have already reduced the period, as a result of the Instruction, from seven to three days. If the Opposition had their way, the period would have been fixed at seven days. The hon. Gentleman now tells us that the local precedents were for periods of notice varying from 24 hours to 48 hours. What justification is there, from the local point of view, for making the period three days? I hope that maturer consideration will lead to a reduction in the length of notice.

Mr. Eyre: Earnest consideration was given to all the circumstances. I tried to describe the total demand upon the services of the police and the undermanning of the police in the West Midlands, both of which are intense local factors of a special nature, which made the requirement of three days' notice the minimum for which they could ask.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman will find that the police manning in the West Midlands is up to national average. It is no lower.
If I had been in the House when the provisions—which were peculiar to the West Midlands—were made in the local Bills requiring notice, I should have objected to them then. Presumably these Acts were passed a long time ago.
Everybody sympathises with the police in their difficulties in maintaining law and order. What happens with processions or demonstrations of that kind? What leads to offences is that people go there determined to break the law. They are much more likely to go there and break the law if they know that there is an organised procession. In my experience a spontaneous procession rarely leads to a


breaking of the law. It tends to be much smaller than an organised procession. Over the past few years the large processions that have caused most of the trouble have been extremely well organised and utilised by other people for fell purposes. No doubt the promoters of the Bill mean that police facilities should be available to maintain law and order. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis suggested a requirement of seven days' notice to Lord Scarman at the Red Lion Square inquiry. The Commissioner went into the matter in much greater detail and gave reasons, as I would expect him to do. He has far more experience to call upon than the hon. Gentleman.
Lord Scarman considered the suggestion with great care and dismissed it. It is important that the House should remember the words that he used in dismissing it:
I do not think that the need for it has been established: and it does present really insuperable difficulty for the urgently called demonstration. Certainly the lack of any such requirement played no part in the causation of these disorders: for the police had all the notice they needed.
That is true of almost every major demonstration. Lord Scarman continued:
It cannot be said too often that our law assumes that people will be tolerant, self-disciplined and willing to co-operate with the police.
The hon. Gentleman quoted that part. He did not quote what Lord Scarman said thereafter. He said:
The assumption is still sound: that is why the police go unarmed, and also why, with no legal requirement of notice, the police are in fact notified in at least 80 per cent. of the cases. There are some who—law or no law—would never give notice: but they are on the very fringe of our society, and should not, I suggest, force upon the law a largely unnecessary requirement, which can at times be an embarrassment to law-abiding citizens. In the few instances where no notification is given the police have so far experienced no difficulty in finding out that a demonstration is planned. An effective demonstration needs a degree of advance publicity: the police, therefore, are seldom ignorant of what is planned. I do not recommend, therefore, this change in the law.
That is a complete answer to the reasons advanced by the hon. Gentleman today. We all deplore the violence that was seen as Lewkisham, for example, and

in various marches of that kind. As Lord Scarman pointed out in another part of his report, the National Front and the Trotskyite bully boys will march regardless of restriction. The more notice they have, the more knowledge they have of the procession, the more likely they are today to take advantage of it.

Mr. Sever: I alluded to that point earlier when referring to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Eyre) about the demonstrations in Birmingham. It is my understanding that at a big demonstration that took place about a year ago the police had at least a week's notice that the National Front was to hold a meeting in the Digbeth civic hall, which, to those hostile to the meeting taking place ensured that the information was available to them for their demonstration.

Mr. Hooson: The demonstrators against the meeting or demonstration will not be given notice of the intention. That will create problems of law and order on the street. All these marches create problems for the police. In Northern Ireland for many years bodies have had to give notice of marches and agree on routes. Over the years there has been more trouble on the marches when the route has been known, as people have gone there and tried to create trouble. The police in Northern Ireland have developed a good technique for dealing with the matter. Nevertheless, it has not been suggested that we should import their experience and change our law. Mature consideration was given to this matter. The Public Order Act 1936 is very effective in many ways. The civil laws of trespass and nuisance already limit the right to demonstrate. It is often difficult in this country to prove various matters.
An officer in this House once told me that at the Red Lion Square demonstration he had the point of a compass shoved into the back of his knee, but he did not know who did it and could not prove who did it. The problem is not that the law does not provide a remedy but that it is very difficult to prove in evidence who has committed an offence or started the trouble. But, whatever its ostensible aims, the clause will affect all sorts of lawful business.
Suppose that an heir to the throne were born and there were to be a spontaneous march to celebrate it. The organiser or the conductor of the march —both terms are used—would be liable to a fine of £200 under the clause. It is all very well to say that the police would not prosecute or that the local authority would not prosecute, but it has the power to do so. It also has the power to prosecute the organiser of a funeral procession.
The letter that I received from solicitors on behalf of the National Association of Funeral Directors reads as follows:
Funeral directors do, of course, organise funeral processions and are frequently required to conduct funerals at short notice and, in any event, most funerals take place within less than seven days of the death of the deceased.
This was before the present troubles. The letter continues:
In these circumstances, it would be impracticable for funeral directors to give the notice prescribed by each of these clauses. Accordingly, the Association have deposited a petition against each of these Bills in opposition to these clauses.
I am reminded that Jewish funerals, under the Jewish religion, have to take place within 24 hours of death.
Clause 39 states that
No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district.
What is a procession? A funeral is a procession. The IRA funeral to which reference was made was not only a procession but was in its way used as a demonstration. But there is no definition clause in the Bill. There is nothing to define what is a procession. It was opined that if something were spontaneous or took a short time, it would not offend against the law laid down in clause 39. In law it would certainly constitute a procession. It does not matter whether the procession lasts for five minutes or for five hours, or how long or short it is. In ordinary English usage—which is the way the judges interpret the term—a procession can mean anything from a procession or five people to a procession of 5,000 people.

Mr. Eyre: I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to say, concerning the funeral directors and their point—it is one which would be very substantially considered in Committee—that the promoters are con-

fident that arrangements can be made which will fit in with the private arrangements of funeral directors. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not relate that too much to the incident associated with the funeral procession of the late Mr. McDade.

Mr. Hooson: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, is he seeking to distinguish between one funeral procession and another? That would lay an impossible task upon the authorities.
The hon. Gentleman should reflect on these matters. The right course for the promoters of the Bill, I suggest, is for them to withdraw the clause. If the promoters, together with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, think that a change is necessary in the Public Order Act 1936, they should advocate a change in the public law of this country. That is the way to do it, and not by a side wind in a Bill of this kind.

8.23 p.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I want to draw attention to clause 99. I share the concern of my hon. Friends about clause 39, but no doubt we shall be returning to that clause a little later.
It would have been infinitely better, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if this really had been a consolidation Bill, a tidying-up Bill. However, as it is not a tidying-up Bill or a consolidation Bill, I feel that it is rather wrong of the promoter to put it forward with these reassuring noises.
I notice that the general trend of the Bill is restrictive. It was only through the vigilance of many people that yet another clause has been dropped, and through the vigilance of my own constituents, among others, the council was persuaded to drop the clause relating to caravans. It was originally intended—unnecessarily and in a blanket way—to restrict the right of people to park their caravans on their own premises.
Clause 39 is another restrictive clause. So I wonder whether the promoters, through clause 99, feel that they are redressing the balance in some obscure way. Perhaps they feel that it is a blow for freedom because it relates to the removal from the National Exhibition Centre of certain provisions of the Shops Act 1950.
I draw attention to the removal from application to the National Exhibition


Centre of Section 47 of the Shops Act. I am concerned about this removal because it relates to Sunday trading. Some hon. Members may feel that allowing Sunday trading is a blow for freedom. However, they are not considering the interests of a good many working people involved.
I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—not, I hasten to say, a sponsored Member of the House, but an ordinary lay member. For a long time I have been aware of the concern felt by shop workers about the abolition of the Sunday trading prohibition. Union members feel under constant pressure with regard to this matter. If we lived in the best of all perfect worlds, freedom to trade every day of the week all round the clock might be a good thing. However, we do not live in the best of all perfect worlds.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly, but I should like to draw attention to a peculiarity that faces shop workers and the trade union that attempts to organise them. Most people do not work on Sundays. Therefore, if Sunday trading is allowed, a door is automatically opened for a vast extension of the practice of moonlighting. If there is a complaint about the removal of protection from a group of working people, normally the working people have the remedy in their own hands and they should join their trade union. The trade union, through its activity, should then protect those workers. But in this case, if this group of workers becomes subject to an enormous influx of others not normally employed in retailing but now free to take part in that trade on a day which is usually free, an enormous problem is created for the trade union and the shop workers.
I am sure that members of my union, and people engaged in the retail trade, will share my fears about clause 99. Although it seems innocent, and seems to apply to a special situation, it is another manifestation of the generalised pressure to enlarge the scope of Sunday trading. It therefore poses a threat to the working conditions of shop workers in general. There would also be a threat to the consumer because of the pressure on prices as a result of keeping shops open seven days of the week.
People are often asked "Would you like shops to be open on Sunday?", and the tendency is to say "Yes". But no one asks who will pay the overheads, the shift allowances or the overtime payments. No one asks those sorts of questions. The general impression given is that we can have Sunday trading without any increase in costs, and without any worsening of conditions for shop workers. That is simply not true.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to the fact that there will be a Report stage on this Bill. In the light of what I have said, I give due notice that some of us may find it necessary to bring forward amendments to this clause in an effort to change it substantially.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I wish to deal with a different part of the Bill, namely, parts VIII and IX, which deal with the licensing of night cafes and entertainment clubs and the licensing of public entertainments, which are defined as "boxing or wrestling entertainment" or "music or dancing entertainment".
As I understand it, the present law is that most of these matters, if not all, are dealt with by the licensing justices. The object of the Bill is to transfer jurisdiction to the local authority. There are two reasons for concern about this proposal, both in relation to my own constituents and also with regard to the entertainment and tourist industry in general. If the pattern is to be set by this Bill and, indeed, by another two Bills which are before the House, that may set a precedent which may spread to other parts of the country.
The second reason for concern, which is the substantive one, is that we have situations in which from time to time local authorities are themselves engaged in the promotion of entertainments, in the form of boxing or wrestling or music or dancing. Therefore, there will be a conflict of interest and the local authority might be a judge in its own cause.
I do not intend to cast any reflection upon the integrity or impartiality of local authorities in the way in which they operate in that capacity. But I believe that this is a matter which should be


further considered. I recognise that there are exemptions in clause 68, and also that there is a provision for appeal to the magistrates against the decision of the local authority. I am not qualified to say whether those exemptions go far enough. My point is simply that I believe that there is here a matter for concern. I hope that in the later stages the promoters of the Bill will be prepared to listen sympathetically to any representations that may be made to them on this subject.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Tierney: I was loth to intervene in the good-natured debate, but now that the disruption has taken place I hope that the promoters will agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and withdraw clause 39. That would he a happy ending to a good-natured and friendly debate.
There are 131 clauses in the Bill. With my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise), I feel strongly about clause 99, which comes under the Birmingham provisions in Part XII. I have in mind the length of this part of our debate, but I should like to spend a few minutes commenting in detail about this clause.
A number of constituents have made representations to me about the application of this clause. I have also received representations from shopkeepers as well as shop workers in the Birmingham area, who have expressed particular concern about clause 99.
I represent a Birmingham constituency. The National Exhibition Centre has been a boon to Birmingham, the West Midlands and the United Kingdom at large. I pay tribute to the foresight and determination of the people who made it possible. It has lived up to its expectations, and I trust that it will flourish for many years to come.
Having said that, I am anxious to discover what some of the expectations are, particularly in the retail trade. I believe that they are taking a path that may be of advantage to the centre in its operations but disadvantageous to other sections of the community.
I oppose clause 99. Clause 99 is headed

Application of Shops Act 1950 to Exhibition Centre".
It provides:
Sections 1, 2, 8 and 47 of the Shops Act 1950 shall not apply to—

(a) a shop to which this section applies during the course of an exhibition and in the period when works or facilities in respect of that exhibition are being provided or removed; and
(b) a stand, whether in a building or in the open, while used for the purpose and during the course of an exhibition."

The effects of the provisions are as follows. Section 1 provides that every shop shall be closed not later than 1 p.m. on one weekday in every week. Section 2 prescribes the general closing hours of shops—that is, 9 a.m. on the late day and 8 p.m. on any other day in the week. Section 8 enables a local authority to regulate the opening hours of shops by making a closing order fixing an earlier hour—not earlier than 7 p.m.—than the general closing hour. But it cannot fix a later hour than 9 p.m. Section 47, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West, provides that, except for the purpose of transactions listed in the fifth schedule to the Act, all shops must be closed on Sundays.
I have read from the evidence given in another place by Sir Robert Booth, who is chairman of the National Exhibition Centre. It is clear that what the centre requires is exemption from the Shops Act 1950, that is, from half-day closing of retail shops on the site, the observance of 8 p.m. or 9 p.m. closing—it wants it later than 9 p.m.—and the restrictions on Sunday trading.
The National Exhibition Centre provides in its central piazza a range of essential services—banks, travel agents, staff agencies and so on. There appears to be no problem here. There are a number of retail shops providing basic requirements such as tobacco, newspapers, chemists' items, souvenirs and gifts. I understand that these shops already open on Sunday from 12 noon to 6 p.m. They operate within the law. They do not affect shops in the vicinity, including those in my constituency. That is accepted and there is no disagreement on that.
There appears to be no problem here except that the centre may want the shops open later than 6 p.m. on Sunday


or—and this is a real fear in my constituency—it may want more shoos in the area of the National Exhibition Centre.
The National Exhibition Centre is on a 300-acre site, well capable of further development. As stated in the evidence in another place, its objectives are, first, to secure maximum occupancy and revenue from its exhibition space. Secondly, it aims to exploit fully the market for its exhibition services and to develop compatible ancillary, promotional and other activities. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that these are objectives capable of the widest interpretation in terms of development now and in the future.
There is a fear that there will be attempts to establish further retail trading units in the NEC, possibly a supermarket or hypermarket or other shops, to sell a wider range of goods. It is envisaged that these would also be exempted from the restrictions of early closing and Sunday trading if clause 99 became legally enforceable. If that occurred, the centre would have an unfair advantage over every other trading outlet within miles of it.
In my view, the clause is not so much concerned with retail shops and their operation as with stands within the exhibition centre. Under the Bill, a stand is defined as
any platform, structure, space or other area provided at the centre for exhibition purposes.
The main problem with the evidence of the chairman of the National Exhibition Centre relates to the retail sales of merchandise from exhibition stands which are presently caught by the legislation. In his statement, the chairman, Sir Robert Booth, said that in Europe Sunday had become an important day for two types of exhibition, and that the practice of opening such shows on Sundays was developing in the United Kingdom.
First, there are trade shows, the sponsors of which wish to inform the general public of up-to-date developments as demonstrated by the building, home electronics and furniture exhibitions which have been staged at the National Exhibition Centre. Secondly, there are exhibitions aimed particularly at retailers or dealers who find Sunday the best day to attend them. British shows with this characteristic have already been held at

the centre. They include domestic textiles, contract furnishing, gifts and hardware, and sports and garden equipment.
Most exhibitions at the centre have wholesale activities which are not affected by the Shops Act 1950. They trade on a different basis. It is evident that the National Exhibition Centre requires the freedom to allow sales directly to the public at these exhibitions, for which, as Sir Robert says, there is a growing demand. This means sales of merchandise directly from the stand to the individual customer. This is the kind of merchandise that can be handled and transported by a member of the public seeking to trade. It would differ very little from the way in which a transaction is normally carried out in the shop or in the market place. In fact, the centre would have all the characteristics of a market, or of a Sunday market, if it were allowed to trade on a Sunday.
If the management of the National Exhibition Centre does this on as big a scale as it does everything else, we could have the beginnings of the biggest Sunday market in Britain, and possibly Europe, within the confines of the National Exhibition Centre. It would be housed in the best buildings with the best facilities that the country can offer. This would affect retailers in general and workers in the retail trades. People would go there to buy articles that they would have bought elsewhere in the centre of Birmingham or in my constituency, for example, during the week.
If we pass the clause, we will give legal status to Sunday markets and invite hundreds more to seek the same right of trading on Sundays. It will be the thin end of the wedge. Shops, supermarkets and hypermarkets will not hold back if their sales are affected by an avalanche of Sunday markets which are open to the public during hours when the shops are closed by law.
I do not want to argue the points in detail about Sunday trading and the effect that it would have within the community. There are those who wish to continue to observe Sunday in line with their religious beliefs, and that is their right. There are those who want Sunday to remain as it is now—the one day of the week when the hustle, bustle and noise cease for a few hours at the end of a


busy week. They want a time when they can go into built-up cities and towns where the streets are clear of exhaust fumes, at least for a while, so that they can do some window shopping. Workers in the retail trades will be greatly affected and placed at a great social disadvantage if they are asked to work on Sundays as well, bearing in mind that they already work on Saturdays. These workers have always taken a broad and reasonable view on the question of providing adequate shopping facilities for the public. In recent years there has been a decided extension of weekday shopping facilities for the public. A six-day trading week has been introduced. This has been coupled with late night closing facilities provided for the public. These have provided the public with more than adequate facilities to shop during a six-day week.
It is necessary to strike a balance between the justified and proven needs of the public, the efficient economic operations of retailing, and the shop workers' need for reasonable and equitable working schedules. Parliament has accepted the need for statutory regulation of trading hours in retail establishments for over 50 years. If Parliament fails to maintain control in respect of Sunday trading, seven-day trading will develop across the board and the increased cost will be borne by the housewife. Laws are made to apply to all, not to give advantage to one over another. It would cause great concern in the retail trades if some sections in a community were able to depart from the present law on shops, or if it were not applicable to them and an advantage was gained by them.
Clause 99 seeks to make sections of the Shops Act 1950 non-applicable to all outlets of retail trading carried on within the National Exhibition Centre. That centre is asking for an advantage over all other retail traders. On that ground alone, clause 99 should be deleted. If not, I will oppose the Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Alan Beith, formally to move his Instruction.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Am I not permitted to move it rather more than formally, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Most certainly. The hon. Gentleman can move it at whatever length he likes. I shall not curb him.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Beith: I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would do no such thing.
I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the committee on the Bill to leave out clause 39.
In moving, though not at great length, this Instruction standing in my name and those of others of my hon. Friends, to which many welcome names have been added, I do not want to add to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on Second Reading because I feel that he made the issues very clear.
In my view, legislation which severely restricts, for whatever reasons, the rights of citizens should have its place in public law if we have it at all, and not in the private legislation of local authorities. In the past that has not always been the case and we have placed restrictions on the rights of individuals' in private legislation over many years. But here we have a major restriction on the freedom of the individual, the freedom of association; and the proper place for that, if it is to be argued for at all, is in public order legislation and not in private legislation.
Secondly, I do not believe that the existence of provisions of this kind would materially assist the police, because my experience of the way these matters have happened in the past suggests to me that the demonstrations which cause the greatest difficulty are known about in advance, because for them to take place at all a substantial number of people have to be told of them, and that very fact suggests that it is inappropriate to place restrictions on more spontaneous demonstrations of the kind which are involved here.
My hon. and learned Friend pointed to some of the ways in which this restriction would extend to genuine spontaneous demonstrations of many kinds—for example, demonstrations when a particular decision is taken and there is an immediate angry reaction to it, perhaps when a council decides that it is to put up the rates by 25 or 50 per cent. and a group of people from a particular area decide that they will march quite peacefully to,


the town hall, wave a banner and put their point of view.
There are demonstrations of a happy, cheerful kind. In my constituency it has been the practice over scores of years, when the Liberal Party, as it often does, wins elections, to hold great torchlight processions.
There has been a long list of Liberal Members in my constituency, such as Sir Edward Grey, whose hackney carriage, when he was elected to the Berwick-upon-Tweed seat, was drawn up the steep hill in the centre of the town and a crowd gathered round. He was re-elected time after time. When we hold such processions, we do not presume upon the wishes of the electorate. We wait until its verdict is declared before we hold our torchlight procession or other celebration in which thousands of people take part. I have taken part in three and intend to take part in many more.
There are many occasions when happy, cheerful, spontaneous processions take place without causing any difficulty to the police. They would be prohibited by the proposed legislation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery quoted the example of funerals to show the ultimate absurdity of supposing that it is right to require seven days' notice before any group of people can hold a procession on our streets. It is a right which we have enjoyed over many years, and it is carried out by the vast majority of those who exercise it with the utmost restraint and concern for law and order.
Indeed, most of those who hold short-notice processions usually telephone police to tell them that there is to be a march and to check the route. The requirement for seven days' notice will not make it easier for the police to deal with such processions.

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman may not have been here when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I made clear that the promoters have authorised me to give an undertaking that the clause will be amended so that three days' notice, rather than seven days, is required.

Mr. Beith: I heard the hon. Gentleman and I am well aware of the under-

taking, but we have to look at the matter against the background of four other county councils queueing up to ask us to approve seven days' notice. I shall refer later to a very much better assurance given by another county council.
Everything that I have said about restrictions applies equally to a requirement for three days' notice to be given. It is ludicrous to have to give even three days' notice of one's intention to organise a funeral procession. Most funerals in my constituency are organised in just about that time and we have enough bureaucratic problems with coroners' certificates, problems over the border and so on.
Difficulties can arise in all the places to which this legislation and similar measures will apply and I see no reason for the citizens of Birmingham to be regarded as inferior to those in the part of the country that I am happy to represent or as being less entitled to their civil rights.
The West Yorkshire county council faced up to the strong objections and gave a clear assurance that it would withdraw the requirement to give notice of processions. Due credit goes to that council and I am sorry that the West Midlands council and other county councils have not given a similar indication.
We should make clear that we regard the proposal as a severe limitation upon the freedom of association and the freedom to express views in civil and peaceful ways and that we do not want to see it as part of any Bill. We should therefore strike it out now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the House that we are also discussing the committal motion in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker):
That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 109, clause 39 of the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House and that the remainder of the Bill be referred to the Committee of Selection.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Rooker: This is an important Bill and in many ways its provisions transcend the West Midlands. It is the forerunner of Bills from other counties. Bills are before this House and another place and I have no doubt that there are even more


Bills in the hands of draftsmen throughout the country containing provisions similar to those in clause 39.
The matter ought to be dealt with by taking clause 39 out of the Bill. I have certain reservations about doing that, but I shall vote for that course if there is a Division. The second best choice is that the Committee stage should be taken on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members may participate and we can get the necessary amendments to cover the problems that have been raised and will be raised in this debate.
Many questions have already been posed about the frequency of marches, the number of people taking part in spontaneous processions, the problem with funerals and so on. If we do not cover all those matters, we shall pass bad law from which our constituents will suffer for years. It will require primary legislation to change what we do wrong.
Mention has been made of what might be called the explantory memorandum, except that it does not deserve the title. It is a statement consisting of three or four paragraphs. To say:
These provisions are promoted by way of re-enactment of local Act sections which are now in force in the greater part of the County
is totally misleading. There is no excuse for that. The promoters know as well as every hon. Member who has taken the trouble to find out the antecedents of the clause that not one of those areas had a seven-day requirement. No reference has been made to that whatsoever. In fact, the statement is deliberately misleading.
On 25 January the parliamentry agents wrote to me, as one of the persons who had down an Instruction, saying that if there were any parts of the Bill other than clause 39 in which I was interested they would be happy to meet me. The last sentence of the letter read:
I do not, however, think that there is anything we can usefully discuss with regard to clause 39".
They were not even open to discussion or negotiation.
The agents came to the House on 12 December last to talk to Labour Members. That happened to be the date of the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, a day when the

House is not generally well attended. I was here because I had secured a debate on Second Reading. That was my first priority. It is quite clear, however, that clause 39 was not even up for discussion.
The minute this Bill was put down for Second Reading last Thursday, statements were made about "three days" instead of "seven". Movement starts once it is realised that a matter is actually coming to the Floor of the House.
I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) for his concession. Those concerned must have at least shown that they are willing to move. However, it still does not meet the argument that this Bill is not really re-enacting other Acts already in force or consolidating them. For the citizens of Birmingham the time limit goes from zero to three days, rather than from zero to seven days. In other parts of the county, of course, it may go from 48 hours to 72 hours. The fact remains that in Birmingham there is a large jump from no time at all to three days.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept—though many people in Coventry perhaps will not accept it—that an awful lot of people in the West Midlands look at Birmingham as the centre of the West Midlands? Therefore, if they are organising a demonstration there is a tendency for them to choose the centre of Birmingham as its focal point, so that in fact it is slightly more significant than it would be if it was one of the outer districts of the West Midlands.

Mr. Rooker: The fact that Birmingham is classed as the centre and the heart of this thriving community in the West Midlands naturally annoys people in Walsall, Wolverhampton and Coventry. But of course it is the focal point because the county administration—the West Midlands county council—is there. Therefore, if one wants to lobby County Hall one has to go to Birmingham. My hon. Friend has raised an important point.
I do not want to delay the House, because other hon. Members wish to speak. But I want to make the point that great play has been made about the undermanning of the police force. The hon. Member for Hall Green referred to that in his introductory speech on Second Reading. On 15 January, in an ATV


television programme called "Left Right and Centre", there was a discussion between Councillor Taylor, the leader of the West Midlands county council, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) on the matter of clause 39. I have taken the trouble to obtain a transcript. Councillor Taylor said:
I am backing the chief constable … he is under-manned … he would like seven days' notice.
We have heard about the undermanning of the police force in the West Midlands. In fact, on 1 April 1974 its strength was 5,235 and on 13 September last year it was 5,822, an increase of 587. The force is still under strength, but it is worth pointing out how much it is under strength.
The figures I have just quoted were given to me in a parliamentary answer on 8 November last year. But on 13 November, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden), it was indicated that on 1 April 1974 the undermanning— that is, strength against establishment—was 1,231. On 1 April 1978 it was 761 under strength. It is clear that a Labour Government take the strengthening of the police seriously, and in absolute terms we have more police nationally and in the West Midlands.
The undermanning has been almost halved since the Tory Party left office, yet the Tories have the brass face to complain that it is the undermanning of the police force that causes the requirement for this legislation. Clearly, we have moved a considerable way towards getting rid of the undermanning in the country and in the West Midlands in the past five years. This must be taken into account.
Let us consider the time limits of the other areas covered by the Bill. Some hon. Members have referred to the Bill and the other measures, so we must put on the record what the position is. In the Wolverhampton Corporation Act the restriction is:
the day next but one before the date started",
excluding, of course, Sundays, bank holidays, and so on. The Walsall Corporation Act 1969, the West Bromwich Corporation Act 1969, the Dudley Cor-

poration Act 1969 and the Warley Corporation Act 1969 contain the same provision. The only exception is the Coventry Corporation Act 1920. I am not sure why there was not a new Act for Coventry in 1969. Section 108 of the 1920 Act requires
notice at … head police office twenty-four hours at least (exclusive of Sundays) previous to the time fixed for such procession".
Dependent on the time when one is having the procession, that can vary by 24 hours and probably up to 48 hours.
If the county had followed the words in the long title
An Act to re-enact with amendments and to extend certain local enactments in force within the county of West Midlands",
if it had stuck to the re-enactment of those Acts with amendments for the areas not already covered—in other words, to bring Birmingham into the same position as Warley, Wolverhampton, Dudley, and so on—it could be argued that it was a true tidying-up measure following local government reorganisation. There might have been an argument about the principle, but one could at least have seen that there was some logic in it. But, no, we had the move to seven days' notice for all the areas. Although we are now talking about three days, until a couple of hours ago we were talking about a whole week, which is a considerable period.
It is not true that in Birmingham, where there are no restrictions at present, processions take place with no notice. I think that the hon. Member for Hall Green read a list of 10 demonstrations or processions that had given cause for concern. He said that the police became aware of all of them. It is usually the function of the organisers of a demonstration or procession—the two usually go hand in hand, but not always—to have as many people there as possible and to secure as much publicity as possible in order to put their case. One does not do that by not telling anybody about it.
The essence of demonstrating is to make a point. Four people walking along a pavement, ignored by everybody, do not make a point. One must get publicity. One must organise, and it is very difficult. It is ludicrous to argue that this measure will, first, solve those problems and, secondly, solve the problems


of the violence. It will not meet the issue of the breakaway demonstrations.
Nothing can affect the problems involved in breakaway demonstrations. Who is to be held responsible? No fool will give three days' notice that he will go on a procession and organise a breakaway procession. The people who are out for trouble and who create violence on the streets will still do that after the passage of this Bill, if it is passed, in the same way as before. Necessary laws to meet that situation under the Public Order Act already exist. Action has to be taken. The great tragedy is that it takes so damned long to get the matters before the court. The issues at Digbeth last year were before the courts in Birmingham only last week, 11 months after the problem occurred. It is a tragedy that the operation of the law takes so long. I will not go into great detail—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that a group of people organise demonstrations and other people object to them and want to counter them in some way? The provision that three days' notice must be given makes it impossible for someone to organise a counter-demonstration. Is there not a major advantage in having a counter-demonstration which can be organised and so allow people to express their feelings rather than people having to stand on the sidelines of one permitted demonstration and make comments or do worse?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) makes a valid point. We have seen the position in Northern Ireland. One march goes down various streets. Others may have been banned. But people will stand in those streets and hurl bricks and missiles at those they disapprove of, because there is no way of organising a peaceful counter-demonstration.
No one in this House, I hope, is advocating violent counter-demonstrations or violent primary demonstrations. We are trying to secure for our constituents only the liberty to participate in peaceful processions and peaceful demonstrations, whether primary or secondary. The essence is that a demonstration has to be peaceful. If opportunities are closed off

for certain groups, they will legitimately feel that they have not been able to put their point, and it is easy for these matters to end up in violence.
Reference has been made to the trades council in Birmingham. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Hall Green was correct in attributing to the trades council the organisation of the marches he gave. I will not nitpick with him. I am sure that there was one march which he listed for which the trades council was not responsible. Sir David Perris, secretary of the Birmingham trades council, has been organising processions and demonstrations in Birmingham for over 13 years. These have included up to 10,000 people. He has had no problems whatever with the police in getting the route organised and organising the stewards.

Mr. Lawrence: Is that not perhaps because he gave notice of those demonstrations and processions?

Mr. Rooker: He gave notice although there were no requirements to do so under any Local Acts affecting Birmingham. He gave notice because he is a responsible individual, heading a responsible organisation. The great mass of people and organisations are responsible and will give notice. Those who are not responsible and who want to cause trouble will not give notice even if this Bill is passed. That is the whole point at issue. As Scarman said, notice is given in 80 per cent. of cases.
Those who want to organise a disruption will organise a breakaway without giving any notice. Sir David Perris has had no problems in Birmingham over a period of 13 years. The trades council has lodged a formal petition against this clause. If the matter is taken on the Floor of the House, the petition will clearly not be presented to a Committee in the normal way, but we will be able to raise these points in great detail.
The trades council makes a point which is worth emphasing—
There is no constitutional or statutory right of freedom of assembly, including a right of procession. The freedom of people to take part in public processions is subject to the civil law of trespass and nuisance, and to the powers of criminal sanctions imposed in legislation relating to the highway and public order … no other restriction should be placed


on the exercise of these rights other than those that are in the interests of public safety.
That is fair. Nobody has argued that clause 39 will alter the reality. It would be a mistake to give people outside the House the impression that the mere passing of a Bill or clause that requires people to give notice will mean that there will be no more rough and tumble in processions, no more violence and no more problems. That would be a false impression.
The Government have considered this matter with the chief constables. The chief constables are not unanimous. If we must curtail the civil liberties of our citizens—and I do not say that we should—all citizens should be affected, not only those covered by local authority Acts.
If farmers in Warwickshire want to demonstrate spontaneously in their tractors and to fill up the streets of Warwick and Leamington, they will be able to do so. If my constituents arrive at their factory one morning and find that there is a "closed" notice on it they will not be allowed to demonstrate. It is not fair to distinguish between people who live in different areas.
This is a matter which is too important to be dealt with in a Local Act. If necessary there should be an amendment to the Public Order Act 1936. That is the only satisfactory way of dealing with the situation.
I gave two examples of the problem during the debate in August. One of them involved the operation of planning rules and the other the incidence of road accidents. During the Summer Recess another case arose. In my constituency there is a former quarry covering about 150 acres. A small part of it is used as a refuse tip by the county council. The council did not adequately cover the crude household refuse with topsoil. Plagues of flies swarmed in their millions in the shops and houses nearby. Petitions were presented and lobbies took place. A group of my constituents decided that an effective way of achieving publicity was to march to the Birmingham council house and present the petition to the mayor, to move to the local environment department and on to county hall.
My constituents equipped themselves with aerosols, fly swats and fly papers. They informed the local press. They marched through the city. That march would have been illegal under the clause. The woman who organised the demonstration could not have given seven days' notice. The houses were invaded by millions of flies. What were they supposed to do? If the clause had been in operation, should they have done nothing? Should they have relied upon local councillors to take action at the next monthly meeting of the council? Not on your life. This required spontaneous action by citizens at the grass roots.
Hon. Members are fond of citing Lord Denning when it suits them. I shall quote him because it suits me. I refer to a dissenting judgment in the case of Hubbard v. Pitt in 1975. It involved estate agents in London. Lord Denning argued about the rights of free-born Englishmen. His arguments are important because they show the willingness of the courts to take on board certain rights which they have not done before.
At page 6 in his dissenting judgment, Lord Denning said:
The principle on which we go was stated many years ago by a very strong Court of Appeal … in Bonnard v. Perryman
It was stated:
The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful act is done; and unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but on the contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an alleged libel.
Lord Denning added:
the right of protest is one aspect of the right of free speech.
That is important because the right of procession and demonstration is clearly part of the right of free speech in English law.
At page 10, Lord Denning said:
That case spoke of the right of free speech. Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done.


Lord Denning continued to talk about the demonstration that occurred
at St. Peter's Fields, Manchester in 1891 in support of universal suffrage. The magistrates sought to stop it. Hundreds were killed and injured. Afterwards the Court of Common Council in London affirmed 'the undoubted right of Englishmen to assemble together for the purpose of deliberating upon public grievances'. Such is the right of assembly. So also is the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern.
The existing common law rights of our individual constituents cannot be stated more clearly. Lord Denning makes the necessary qualification that I have already stated—namely,
As long as all is done peaceably and in good order without threats or incitement to violence or obstruction".
Lord Denning continued:
I stress the need for peace and good order. Only too often violence may break out: and then it should he firmly handled and severely punished.
I do not dissent from that. I do not advocate a charter for violence. I do not advocate a wreckers' charter. I want to protect the individual rights of my citizens and those of others not in the West Midlands, like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who may be next in the queue. This is a classic case where we have to stand and defend the rights of one group to protect the rights of the mass of the people. If we do not do so, they will be impeded later.
Lord Denning concluded:
It recognised that it was important to maintain the 'freedom of protest on issues of public concern'. It is time for the courts to recognise this too.
That was in 1975. Although it was a dissenting judgment, it was Lord Denning's. I have quoted a statement made by the Master of the Rolls that transcends the attempt in the Bill to impinge upon the rights of our constituents.
During the ATV programme entitled "Left, Right and Centre" the leader of the West Midlands Council kept on saying that he wanted to support the police. In answer to a question put by the interviewer he replied:
Yes, I think that a spontaneous action of that nature, if it is genuinely spontaneous, is not an orgainsed procession"—
in other words, a group of parents marching on the town hall. The leader

of the council was saying that, if the procession is genuinely spontaneous and is not an organised procession, he, the chief of West Midlands county council, is prepared to sanction it. Councillors are not supposed to make law in that way. That is the function of this place. That is our purpose as legislators.
I am not prepared to accept the words of the leader of the county council when he appears on television to try to reassure citizens of the West Midlands. It is all very well saying "It will be all right because I, John Taylor, say so", but that is not good enough. The courts will not take any account of what a councillor says on television. The courts will take account of the common law of the land as I hope was correctly enunciated by Lord Denning and they will take account of Acts of Parliament. For that reason, this House should not unknowingly put into a statute something which could have repercussions reaching much farther than the promoters of this Bill are prepared to admit.
Clearly the hon. Member for Hall Green could not answer all the interventions put to him, because that is the problem in promoting a Bill which contains such a wide-ranging clause. Hon. Members ought to be of a mind to throw it out completely, but if that is not possible they ought at the very least to do the job themselves in Committee of the whole House. They should put in amendments, if the clause stays there, such as are reasonably practical to provide a way out for the spontaneous demonstration where it is clearly not possible, in the interests of getting a grievance heard, to give notice, whether it be one day, three days or seven days.

9.26 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I sometimes think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is God's gift to the debater. I cannot resist answering some the points that he made, although I shall not follow his example as to length.
I find it hard to believe that the only way in which the hon. Gentleman's constituents could have been saved from the plague of savage flies was by having a demonstration. I have no doubt, because I respect the hon. Member for Perry Barr as a good constituency Member of


Parliament, that he could have dealt with the plague of savage flies without a demonstration. I assure him that, had that happened in my area, I should have stormed into the environmental department and had something done about it at once. The hon. Gentleman must not suggest that the only way in which his troubled constituents could have had their difficulties alleviated was by a march.

Mr. Rooker: One way.

Mrs. Knight: Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made great play of the fact that the strength of the West Midlands police force had increased. I know that the hon. Gentleman has acquainted himself with the facts. Therefore, he will know, as I know, that it is necessary to look somewhat further than the question of numbers, because the increase in numbers is frequently accounted for by the increased recruitment of women police officers.
One of the difficulties of dealing with violence, demonstrations and activities of that kind is that, no matter how excellent women police officers may be in areas of police work, they cannot do the same job as police constables. I think that it was a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to talk about numbers without at the same time saying that, although there was an increase in recruitment of 587 in the West Midlands police force, it did not necessarily mean that there were 587 more burly, capable, police officers, because there were not.

Mr. Rooker: Half of them were women. So what?

Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me, he would have heard me say that it was absolutely misleading to talk of an increase in numbers, thereby suggesting that there was now no serious problem of undermanning in the West Midlands police force. During the period that we are considering, the crime rate doubled, so that the police have a much more difficult job than they used to have. They have to do that job with a seriously undermanned force.
Another reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Perry Barr was that, if a demonstration were to be organised, it was important to tell people that it was

being organised. Otherwise, as he said, the organisers would not get support. If the organisers have to tell a lot of people that they intend to organise a demonstration, why should they object to telling the police?

Mr. Rooker: They do that now.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman made the point that it was not necessary because the organisers have to tell everyone. If they do it now, why is the hon. Gentleman complaining about this clause?

Mr. Rooker: The point has clearly been made that, in order to have an effective procession, people must be informed. Most people tell the police. The hon. Lady is missing the point that, with a spontaneous demonstration, where notice cannot be given, failure to notify, because it would be impracticable, is to be a criminal offence.

Mrs. Knight: It is the hon. Gentleman who has missed the point. If there is this widespread dissemination of information, why is it wrong to ask that it should be given to the police?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Perhaps I may ask the hon. Lady a question. If there is such widespread dissemination of information, why is it necessary for the police to have criminal sanctions at their disposal?

Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a little, I shall cover that point in my few remarks.
I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Perry Barr should have said that, for a demonstration to be successful, people have to know about it. If so, why should it be such a bad thing for the police to be informed officially?
The hon. Gentleman said "We are only trying to get for our constituents the freedom to demonstrate." He then quoted Lord Denning. If clause 39 forbade demonstrations, I should be against it. If it said "You will no longer have the right to demonstrate", I should agree with the hon. Gentleman that that would be a serious curtailment of liberty which the House could not possibly contemplate. But it does not do that. People will still have the right to demonstrate, and we should support that right.
Lord Justice Scarman, in his report, referring to the fact that most Western European States have the requirement of notice for which we are asking here, said:
it is difficult, therefore, to argue that it represents an unacceptable encroachment upon liberty.
I do not think it does. I agree that if it banned demonstrations absolutely it would be a totally different matter.
I support clause 39 for reasons of law and the need to protect citizens. I believe that citizens have the right to go about their business unfettered. They should not be hampered by demonstrations across a busy Birmingham street.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Lady is talking about police powers.

Mrs. Knight: We cannot take one section of the populace and say that we defend their rights but that the rest do not matter. That is what those who oppose the clause are virtually saying. People who wish to demonstrate have the right to demonstrate. But I suggest that those who wish to walk the streets peacefully and quickly also have rights, and their rights have been very badly affected in recent years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) gave many instances. For example, there is a real need to protect shopkeepers. In Birmingham in recent years shopkeepers have had to bear serious deprivation because of unschooled, out-of-hand demonstrations. I think that most Birmingham Members have had letters about that very point.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Lady mentioned violent demonstrations and people crossing busy streets. What additional powers does the clause give to the police to deal with processions, violent or peaceful, passing through busy streets?

Mrs. Knight: If the police are made aware of an intended demonstration, they can make arrangements for detours or they can ask that the demonstration takes place in another street, and so forth.
I support clause 39 because I trust the judgment of the police. If the police had not asked for this power, I should not

want it. But, the police having asked for it, I believe that it is essential. I believe the police when they say that they will not be able to protect the public without three days' notice. If the police tell me that they need three days' notice to make arrangements to protect the public, I judge that they know what they are talking about. I do not believe they say that to be provocative. Nor are they saying that because they want to curb the unions and the National Front. The police want this for a good reason.
The period of seven days is constantly suggested. The police agreed that the matter could be dealt with within three days. I am talking about the three-day period. It is important for hon. Members to remember that the police must defend our people. Unless we give the police our backing in the task we give them, we should not be surprised if our constituents are angry at the way in which we do not seem to care any longer for their safety. If the police want this provision, they do so for a good reason.
A red herring has been drawn across this debate. I refer to the question of funerals. I have no doubt that funerals need not be covered by this point. No doubt an amendment could be made to cover that aspect. Any hon. Member is at liberty to move amendments to Bills. It is ridiculous to talk about a funeral in the same way as we talk about some of the violent demonstrations that we have seen in Birmingham in recent years.
The Bill should make a distinction. It is our job to ensure that it does so. Frequently points such as the funeral point have not been considered before a proper examination in the House. Hon. Members know that they must not prevaricate on this matter. They know that it is possible to exempt funerals from this provision.
Finally, I refer to Lord Justice Scarman. In his 1974 report, he did not recommend a change in the law. Since 1974 we have seen an escalation in violent crime figures and violent demonstrations which have racked Birmingham in recent years. If the rest of the country follows Birmingham's lead, so be it. Birmingham puts the protection of its citizens at the top of the list. If the Birmingham police ask for this provision, I shall support it.

9.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Merlyn Rees): The suggested amendments to clause 39 are an important aspect of the Bill. It is important that the provisions should be subject to careful scrutiny both now and later. Perhaps the House might find it helpful if I were to give my view on the general matter of making a requirement for advance notice of processions.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) spelt out why this legislation was brought forward at the moment. I want to make this clear. When this matter was discussed before Christmas certain views were put forward. The contents of this Bill and others like it are the responsibility of the local authorities. The Government have neither asked nor in any way suggested to the authorities that provisions on the notice of processions should be included. That is entirely a matter for the local authority concerned.
As to the general law—so I am reminded, as this has been said before —the House will know that the Public Order Act 1936, which contains the relevant national law, imposes no requirement on the organisers of processions to give advance notice. In this country we have not found the need to impose a general requirement, although in recent years we have had to consider that on more than one occasion.
We have been reminded that the then Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis proposed to the Scarman inquiry that the law should be changed so as to include a requirement of seven days' clear notice of processions. A great deal of what Lord Scarman said has been quoted.
I should like to use one part of it again to aid my argument. Lord Scarman said at that time that
our law assumes that people will be tolerant, self-disciplined, and willing to co-operate with the police. The assumption is still sound: that is why, with no legal requirement of notice, the police are in fact notified in at least 80 per cent. of the cases.
We are talking here about a proportion of cases in which no notification is made. Lord Scarman went on to say:
There are some who—law or no law—would never give notice; but they are on the very fringe of our society and should not, I suggest, force upon the law a largely un-

necessary requirement, which at times can be an embarrassment to law-abiding citizens.
Lord Scarman did not recommend a change in this law.
We considered in the Home Office, after the disturbances at Lewisham and Ladywood, that the Public Order Act 1936 should be reviewed. Admittedly, at Lewisham the lack of an advance notice requirement had in no way contributed to the disorder. It had, however, I am advised, made more difficult the policing of the election meeting at Ladywood, where impromptu marches were organised by the demonstrators.
The lack of such requirement also had a bearing, I am advised, on events in Manchester on 8 October 1977, when the National Front held a march through Levenshulme and Longsight. Our subsequent discussions with chief officers did not suggest that deficiencies in the national law were regarded by them as a major problem. The arguments were finely balanced, but it is the view of the Government that the views expressed by Lord Scarman have not been invalidated for the country as a whole by subsequent events. We see no reason currently to amend the Public Order Act 1936.
What, then, about a police authority acting through its local authority which wishes to do differently? In my view, it is most important to consider the arguments very thoroughly when they come from a large area, where the number of people is 2,700,000. The views of the police authority and the chief constable should be considered in great detail.
I have taken my view about the metropolis for which I am responsible and for the country as a whole, but I do not believe that there is a need for what is proposed here. It is my job, as an individual Member—because this is a Private Bill—to listen carefully to the arguments put forward. I am not much moved on this issue by what happens in Berwick-upon-Tweed. Judging by the once or twice that I have been to the town, I should not have thought that this problem arose there.
I know that the problem arises in Northern Ireland, and that therefore there is a public order measure in the Province. I know that in Northern Ireland the seven days' notice is extremely important. It is probably an important


element also in Liverpool, with the Orange and Green tradition. Here we are considering the West Midlands and the arguments put forward in that context.
Much as I respect the views put forward tonight, in my view it is important that the matter be looked at in greater detail, and that it should not be decided by people coming in in an hour and 20 minutes' time. There is a great deal of room for discussion on this matter, and a number of issues arise. I acknowledge the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Rooker) that similar powers have existed in some of the county boroughs since 1969. What I am not so sure about is whether, in the past 10 years or before, demonstrators ever had any problems with the existing legislation, and, if so, why.
I was interested in the legal analysis of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about what might happen under the proposed legislation. I am not the police authority for the West Midlands, although I have endeavoured to get some information. Has the advance notice provision ever stopped impromptu and other demonstrations in the West Midlands? We owe it to the promoters of the Bill to find out the facts, and they have not been put forward this evening.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend equally accept that the promoters of the Bill have a duty to this House to show that the absence of such a provision in Birmingham has in some way inhibited them? That fact has not been made clear by any hon. Member who has spoken in support of the Bill.

Mr. Rees: As someone who sometimes takes advice on proposed national legislation, I have not heard from either side of the House, except on matters of principle, sufficient and detailed argument about an important Bill that originates from the West Midlands area with the support of the police authority and the chief constable. It deserves more detailed investigation.

Mr. Hooson: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman says about the experience in the West Midlands. It may be that the provisions in seven of the Acts have been honoured more in breach

than in observance by the local authority. Judges always say that Parliament should look to the words used in the Act rather than the intention, because the two are often completely at variance. I believe that that is the position with the clause as drafted.

Mr. Rees: That may well be, but I believe that we need more information about the matter. I would not bring such a Bill forward in the metropolis area. That is not the advice that I receive. It is not something that I would wish to do, anyway, nor is it for the general legislation of the country. But for an area of nearly 3 million people it is important that greater analysis of the argument should be made. This situation does not occur in London and I shall not bring forward such legislation for the metropolitan area.
With regard to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I should like to know more about what happens in relation to spontaneous demonstrations. Who makes the judgment? Is it a question of good sense, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said? As I understand it, the chief constable or the prosecutor has exercised a sensible judgment, and that good sense seems to have prevailed in the past. It is important to know whether such a provision has ever inhibited a spontaneous demonstration.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is aware of the problem with regard to the metropolis area because he and some of his colleagues discussed with me, some 18 months ago, changes in the Public Order Act. I had talks with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his staff and there are problems in making a decision on marches. It is important that the routes of demonstrations should be known in order to be able to direct traffic on a Saturday afternoon. It is important that if a march goes through an immigrant area the route should be known in advance, whether the march is organised by the National Front or the SWP.
The routes are not known of 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. of marches and I should not like to be responsible for the fact that a march went through an immigrant area in Birmingham and led to trouble.


However, I am not aware of the figure in the West Midlands area and therefore I cannot make up my mind on that. Is it 80 per cent.? Is it 85 per cent? I should like to have more details, and I have not heard them in today's debate.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Jill Knight) that there is no point in making the argument that because one is against a Bill one is against the police, or if one is for a Bill one is for the police. That kind of argument shows the House at its worst.
I am told that at Ladywood 97 police officers were injured and that extensive damage was caused. One must take such circumstances into account if one has any responsibility for policemen. The same is true if one serves in the Ministry of Defence or in Northern Ireland and puts a soldier in a position in which one will not be oneself. In such circumstances it is important to realise the responsibility of what one is doing.

Mr. Hooson: I am worried about the trend of this argument. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that this depends on experience. Surely that must be wrong, because a person who conducts or organises a procession must know whether he is committing an offence. If he or she does not know, and it is left to the whim or judgment of a chief constable or a local authority, the law cannot be right because the law aims at certainty as far as possible. What the right hon. Gentleman is now arguing is that this must be left to the judgment of the local officers, and that cannot be right.

Mr. Rees: It may be absolutely true that it cannot be right in the legalistic sense of the term, but we must consider the problem of injury to people or damage to property. Such a situation may not happen in Montgomeryshire or in the rural areas, but it does happen in certain parts of our inner cities. We must also take into account the problem of coloured people, the problem of the National Front, and so on.
Much as I do not want such a provision in London—and no argument has been put to me that we should have it in London—the immediate question I ask myself is why it is needed in the West

Midlands. I want to know the facts of the matter, because undoubtedly problems have arisen there as a result of spontaneous marches. But our duty to the West Midlands area, and to the police authority there, is to look into this matter in greater detail.
The hon. Member for Hall Green talked about the organiser of a procession. I believe that he was wrong. With respect, I believe that his argument related to conducting as well as to organising a procession. But it is an important point.
The hon. Gentleman put forward the Bill on behalf of the West Midlands. Let us look at it in greater detail to see what lies behind it. For example, the question of funerals was a new one on me. I made some inquiries this afternoon, and no one told me that in the whole of the West Midlands area there had ever been a problem with funerals. I recall that when James McDade, who I understand was an IRA man, was killed, the funeral was banned nationally by my predecessor. But I cannot find any examples of funerals having been stopped in the past.
It may well be that as a result of the way in which the Bill is drafted funerals can be stopped. If it is drafted in that way, it must be drafted differently because I know of no examples when that has happened.

Mr. Eyre: May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the funeral of James McDade led to a difficult situation in the West Midlands? On that basis, the promoters wrongly included the funeral directors in the proposals. They have instructed me to say that they will exempt private funerals. I hope that that will deal with that difficulty.

Mr. Rees: That illustrates the point. I believe that this clause in particular needs far greater investigation than we have been able to give it tonight. Speaking for myself, I would prefer this matter to be looked at in greater detail on the Floor of the House at a later stage. Nationally there is no question of our doing this. In the metropolis for which I am responsible there is no question of its being done. In the case of the West Midlands, I would want to hear longer argument on it before any decision was taken.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I rise to oppose this motion for an Instruction. It is important that clause 39 remains part of the Bill. I should like to explain in broad principle why we consider clause 39 to be so important. It is in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the citizens who live in the West Midlands metropolitan county district, first, that their lives are not unreasonably disrupted. Secondly, it is important that their property is not unreasonably damaged when there is a march or procession. Thirdly, local traders and shopkeepers whenever possible should have an opportunity to operate their businesses on a Saturday afternoon or any other time that a march is taking place.
If the police are given prior notice, preferably of two or three days, there will be a good chance that the rights of the great majority of citizens will be upheld. The police will be present in the appropriate strength to make sure that the procession or march does not become unruly or cause damage to property or gross inconvenience to those living in the West Midlands metropolitan area, and certainly allows traders to carry on their business, which is vitally important to them.
I followed closely the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I am not sure whether he is totally opposed to the reasoning behind clause 39 or whether he objects to the seven days that was mentioned when the Bill was orginally opposed and now the three days that has been correctly mentioned tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre). The hon. Member for Perry Barr rightly pointed out that many other borough councils which make up the metropolitan county council already have a similar clause, some for 24 hours and others for 48 hours. Is his principal objection that it is 72 hours and he feels that it should be 24 or 48? Alternatively, is he against the whole principle? it was not clear from his speech.

Mr. Rooker: I made it absolutely clear. The Bill should perform the function intended under the Local Government Act 1972 and achieve uniformity in the county

area. I probably would not have raised any objection in principle if Birmingham had had the same imposition as Walsall, Wolverhampton and Dudley. I said that more than once, but that is not the argument. The promoters of the Bill have been grossly dishonest in their drafting. That is why we object tonight.

Mr. MacKay: That is interesting, because this is principally a consolidation measure. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said earlier, at present Birmingham and Solihull have no such provision. The remaining districts in the West Midlands metropolitan county area have a provision of 24 or 48 hours. Are we right in assuming that the hon. Member for Perry Barr and his hon. Friends opposite would be happy in principle with the Bill, including clause 39, if it was 48 hours as opposed to the 72 hours mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green?
It is interesting to note that during the last 50 years on more than 100 occasions a similar clause has been in a Private Bill that has passed through this House. As recently as 1969, several Black Country boroughs within what is now the West Midlands metropolitan council included this measure and it was not objected to at all by any hon. Member, including the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
I ask hon. Members representing West Midland seats how many objections they have had in Walsall, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Coventry to the clauses that are already in operation in their various districts. I think that there have been very few objections. The only objections that I have received have been from Sir David Perris and others involved specifically in the Birmingham trades council or Birmingham trade unions. This is the first time they have come into contact with such a clause. I have had no objections from any trade union groups representing the other boroughs which constitute the West Midland county.

Mr. Rooker: That is not exactly so, because the National Union of Mineworkers, which is not exactly strong in Birmingham, has lodged objections to the Bill. The reason why there has been no problem about spontaneous demonstrations in those areas already covered by an enactment is that the police have chosen to use their discretion and turn a


blind eye. I object to the use of that discretion, because it means that they will choose to prosecute one person and not another. If people are to be covered by the law, all should be treated equally. Clearly that has not happened. People organising spontaneous demonstrations in Walsall and Wolverhampton have not been prosecuted, whereas they should have been had the law been enforced.

Mr. MacKay: I am not sure how one organises a spontaneous demonstration.
The whole point behind the remarks made now and earlier by the hon. Member for Perry Barr was that when Sir David Perris organised his many marches in his 13 years with the Birmingham trades council he always informed the police. Under the Bill, Sir David will have no problems in organising as many more marches as he wants to. It is not Sir David or others like him whom we wish to restrict or control in any way. The trades council is a perfectly reasonable organisation, and any other such organisation which wishes to march or hold May Day rallies will be able to do so if it gives two or three days' notice. There is no question of this being in any way a trade union-bashing measure, and it will not restrict officially organised trade union demonstrations and processions.
The other sort of trade union demonstration was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). This is the one in which a man is dismissed suddenly from a branch, and the workers decide to march up the road to the head office to object strongly to the dismissal which they consider unreasonable. I suggest that that is a spontaneous demonstration. It is quite clear that spontaneous demonstrations which have not been formally organised do not come under the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Member that there is no possibility that his constituents, so marching, would be affected.

Mrs. Wise: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that the clause speaks of "conduct" as well as "organise". Can he define the word "conduct" in this context?

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of Mr. Emlyn Hooson and the second motion in the name of Mr. J. W. Rooker relating to the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until eleven o'clock or for one hour after the first motion has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr.Walter Harrison.]

Question again proposed.

Mrs. Wise: For example, if there is a spontaneous demonstration and someone walks at its head, is he conducting it? Alternatively, if he attempts to marshal or steward such a spontaneous demonstration, is he conducting it?

Mr. MacKay: The answer is quite simple, if one looks at the definition of "spontaneity". If a march is spontaneous, it does not come under this Bill and it is quite wrong for hon. Members opposite to suggest that it does and to put fear into the minds of trade unionists or, as was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Bethnal Green and Bow, to refer to the example of mothers taking action where a child has been run over at a pedestrian crossing. They may have been campaigning for a long time for their local council to provide a better crossing at the junction but nothing has happened, the council has done nothing. The Member of Parliament has done nothing. Then suddenly a child is run over and killed and there is a terrific emotion. Most Members will recall what has perhaps happened in their own constituency or locality where such things happen.
Those mothers, quite rightly for the moment, will take the law into their own hands. They will demonstrate or march. Perhaps they will sit in the middle of the road and then march to the local police station or the town hall. We could not condone that, for it is breaking the law, but I believe we could sympathise with it. This is another example of spontaneity, and those mothers would in no way come under this Act.
To suggest, as several hon. Members have, that mothers demonstrating in this way could place themselves in a position where they could be prosecuted under this Bill is, with the greatest respect, misrepresentation.

Mr. Beith: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he is quite


sincere in his wish that demonstrations of this kind should be excluded under the Bill, but there is no way in which one can read this clause and find in it any suggestion that spontaneity is to be an exception or that anybody involved in organising the demonstration would not be open to the full rigours of the law.

Mr. MacKay: Any person who is to be prosecuted has to come before the courts. Clearly, the courts will define what "spontaneity" is. I have given two examples, that of union members deciding on the spur of the moment, because of a sudden act by their firm, to march on the head office, and that of mothers. Neither is to be included in this Act because their act is spontaneous.
I will now refer to another example given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever), who raised a very important point: what happens if an organisation agrees to march and gives the necessary number of days' notice? Let us say for the sake of argument it is a highly respectable group such as the Stechford Conservative association. It decides to move down Washford Heath Road in my constituency, and unknown to it the Socialist Workers Party decides to infiltrate the march and causes considerable trouble and smashes windows in that road and does damage to people's property and cars—which could happen. The hon. Member for Ladywood asks whether the organiser of that march, perhaps my constituency agent or chairman, is liable. Clearly, the answer is that in a court of law, the prosecution, principally the chief constable, has to prove—and one can only prosecute the organiser—that those who committed offences were actually part of the organisation which was marching. I could easily prove to the hon. Member for Ladywood that those concerned were not supporters of the Stechford Conservative association and were not members of some fringe or other group. I am absolutely satisfied that no respectable march can be taken over by militants and extremists which then will lead to the organiser of the march being prosecuted.

Mr. Sever: I asked the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) whether he would concede that anyone turning up to oppose an approved march or demonstration would necessarily come

under the provisions of the Bill. I do not think that there is any proposal that adds extra provisions in regard to public order for the groups who come to protest. We would still have the sort of trouble to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. MacKay) referred. Has the hon. Gentleman any experience of the notice given for a demonstration curtailing those who wish to oppose such a demonstration?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman's last comment has been adequately covered by some of his hon. Friends. In the great majority of cases, those who oppose a march or demonstration will know about it long before the three days' notice is given. If they wish to counter-march, they may apply for permission and the organisers of the counter-march will be responsible for the counter-marchers, just as those who organise the original march will be responsible for their supporters.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) spoke about football crowds. Football matches are a very good example of the police being notified in advance and restricting the problems that can occur for the local population. Every first-class football club employs, through the local constabulary, a large number of police officers at its matches. The clubs obviously notify the chief constable well in advance. He is given a fixture list at the beginning of the season and any alterations are notified well in advance. The claim of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that there is something out of the ordinary in football supporters is fallacious.
However, there is an important aspect related to football matches. Many demonstrations, particularly political or industrial demonstrations, take place on Saturday afternoons. From mid-August until nearly May, there are regular football matches on Saturday afternoons and they require many police to be in attendance. It is very difficult for the local chief constable to deploy extra police officers at short notice to look after demonstrations. Three days' notice would give him time to acquire police from neighbouring areas to handle the football crowds and the demonstration.
It may be that the West Yorkshire county council decided to withdraw the


clause because it has only one first division football club in its area. At the moment, though not, I fear, for long, we have five first division clubs in the West Midlands metropolitan area.
It has been suggested that the police know of marches anyway and have manned all the demonstrations that we have talked about and that we do not therefore need the proposed regulations. We are lucky if the police have known about every demonstration to date. We should congratulate them on their intelligence.
I confirm that the great majority of demonstrations are law-abiding, respectable and reasonable, but there will be demonstrations where the demonstrators' sole aim is to cause trouble and damage to the local population. The hon. Member for Perry Barr suggested that every group of demonstrators will always want publicity and will always let the press know and that, therefore, the police will also know. I can think of certain groups, particularly on the political extreme—groups such as the National Front and other extreme racist organisations—which are not particularly interested in publicity in newspapers but are interested in going into an area of racial conflict and causing the maximum amount of trouble. They would not necessarily let the press know.

They would not be letting the police know that they are out to have a punch-up and cause a great deal of trouble to the immigrant community and to the law-abiding white community.
Such people would come directly under the Bill. The hon. Member for Perry Barr says that they would not register anyway. I suggest that with a fine of a maximum of £200 they would be likely to register. We would be doing a service to the great majority of people in the West Midlands and doing no harm to any genuine group that wished to march or demonstrate. If I thought that we were, I, too, would be opposing the clause.
When the clause first came to my notice, I told the sponsors that there was no way in which I could support it with a seven-day provision, because that was totally unreasonable and I believed that it would be contrary to the interests of many innocent, law-abiding groups in the West Midlands.
Bearing that in mind, I hope that the hon. Members who wish to amend the clause dramatically or have it withdrawn will think again. I believe that it is a reasonable clause, particularly as the period has been reduced to three days. It would require only a small reduction to two days to bring it totally into line with the provisions of many of the borough councils within the West Midlands group.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. George Park: It is poetic justice that, owing to the swings of local political fortune in the West Midlands, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) had the job of sponsoring the Bill tonight. I cannot help contrasting his reception with the one accorded to me when I introduced a similar Bill.
It must be evident from the actions and comments of my hon. Friends that they intended all the way through not to do as the Opposition did last time, throwing the baby out with the bath water. They understood that the Bill contained valuable provisions which were essential for local government to continue in the West Midlands. On that basis, their comments have tended throughout the debate to be constructive and directed to trying to strengthen those parts of the Bill they felt to be weak. They felt that some provisions should be deleted.
But this is a cumbersome, clumsy way of trying to secure legislation which affects large tracts of our country. To have a whole series of metropolitan county council Bills, many of them with common clauses, and to have them debated interminably in the House is surely not the best way of using our time. I know that the Government tried to help with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. It helped a bit, but it did not go far enough.
If we look at this Bill and the others to follow, we shall find many examples of needs which are national in character and not strictly confined to one neighbourhood. The clause that has attracted the most attention tonight, clause 39, is one such.
I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who spoke on behalf of the Government, that what was all right for London was not all right for Birmingham. I can see no basic difference between the make-up of a large city such as Birmingham and that of London.

Mr. Christopher Price: My hon. Friend should try representing both.

Mr. Park: I would not mind representing both. London Members apparently think that they are the only ones who represent polyglot communities. They should come to Coventry some time and have a go in my constituency. I reckon that it is a bit like the League of Nations. I doubt whether hon. Members could name a nationality that is not to be found in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise).

Mr. William Wilson: United Nations, not League of Nations.

Mr. Park: There have been some comments about the rights of free-born Englishmen. Maybe I am not the right person to talk about that matter, being a Scotsman.
I think that the county council has taken cognisance of the fact that those rights apply to all the people and not to just some of the people. It has introduced in clause 39 what it considers to be a method of allowing those people who do not happen to be involved in demonstrations to conduct their lives in the way they want. It is clear from the short examination that we have given to clause 39 that it demands further considerable examination and amendment. If it cannot be amended properly so that the law can apply equally to everyone, it would be better if this part of the Bill were deleted altogether rather than have a weak law or one that was open to misinterpretation.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in his proposal that clause 39 be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must move that a little later. I am prepared to consider it later, but not at this moment.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The most significant speech we have heard was that by the Home Secretary. It was different in tone and in approach from many of the comments made by his hon. Friends. The approach suggested


by the Home Secretary was sensible. May I summarise some of his arguments? First, he said that notice was not given at Ladywood, which made the job of the police more difficult. Indeed, 97 policemen were injured. Secondly, although he does not intend to deal with the problem nationally, which he rightly pointed out was proposed by Scarman, he did not have objections to its being dealt with in important local areas—such as the West Midlands, with almost 3 million people. He also distinguished between areas where the problem exists and areas where it does not exist. He seems to have neatly demolished the case of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). It is the exact opposite of what the hon. and learned Gentleman, representing the Liberal Party, was saying. We agree with the Home Secretary that local discretion is an important and sensible step to take.

Mr. Sever: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has referred to the National Front meeting during the Ladywood by-election. One of the matters that concerned local people at that time was that the local authority, having control over the school in which the meeting was called, would have known some considerable time in advance because it had the booking for that school and would have been able to notify the police. If that was not done, surely that was the fault of the local authority, which should have recognised that there might be problems and notified the police.

Mr. Fowler: I take the point. I was summarising what the Home Secretary had said. The hon. Gentleman probably has a point worthy of consideration.
The Home Secretary asked whether the existing requirements which apply in parts of the West Midlands had deterred demonstrations. The answer appears to be that they have not. I agree with the Home Secretary. He is saying something with which the whole House can agree, namely, that some areas require further consideration. That can be done following the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) that this matter will be dealt with in Committee on the Floor of the House.
The question of demonstrations is undeniably difficult. It has caused prob-

lems not only in this country but throughout the democratic world. It has caused problems in every country of Western Europe and in the United States. It is at least proper for this House to approach the question with certain humility. There is a balance between the right of the demonstrator to demonstrate and the right of the public to have their rights protected. We are discussing that balance tonight. We deceive ourselves if we believe that the citizen has no right in this matter. The citizen has the right to go about his business and to use roads and pavements with as little interruption as possible. More important, citizens have the right to go about their business in peace.
We are talking about the right of peaceful demonstration in an important area of the country. We are not discussing the possibility of banning demonstrations. That would be wrong in principle and in practice. The police would not support that; politicians would not support it. In the 1968 Paris riots the Government sought to ban a demonstration. The police role has changed. Instead of controlling the demonstration, they sought to prevent it from taking place. If only a few people challenge such a ban, a confrontation is inevitable.
In London in 1968 and since we have placed our faith in seeking to control demonstrations peacefully. In this country we recognise the right to demonstrate but we seek to control it peacefully. In modern circumstances, how can that policy best be followed? I suggest that a period of notice is necessary in the West Midlands and Birmingham.
That period of control is necessary for two reasons. First, demonstrations are more common and, at times, more violent than they were 10 or 20 years ago. More important, they are more common than they were four or five years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green talked about demonstrations in 1975–76 and after that. He did not go back beyond that period.
Other circumstances have also changed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green was right to say that events such as football matches place enormous pressures on police resources at weekends. Crime has increased in the West Midlands, as it has elsewhere. There has also been a disturbing increase in the number


of assaults on the police. Last year there was an 18·5 per cent. increase in such assaults compared with the previous year. The police are under unprecedented pressure. Nowhere is that more evident than in the West Midlands.
The police are undermanned. That is so in the major cities of Western Europe. The police forces of Munich, Amsterdam, Paris and Birmingham are undermanned. The resources that are available to the police are now insufficient to allow them to make arrangements within hours to deal with a demonstration. It is unrealistic to imagine that men can be deployed in a short time, with all the changes that that involves.
All that we request is that some notice of a demonstration is given. There must be a period of notice which allows a chief constable to take precautions to protect the public safety and to organise his force so that the chance of violence is minimised. That is neither repressive nor revolutionary. It is a condition which attaches to demonstrations in other countries in Western Europe. That system works in Holland, where civil liberties are as important as they are here. It works in West Germany, France and in other countries. It works effectively in other parts of Europe, and perhaps for once we should consider that experience.
When the question of notice was raised initially, my first question was the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. MacKay). It did not go to the principle of the notice but was concerned with whether seven days was too long. As a result of approaches, and as a result of the chief constable's own decision, the period was reduced to three days. That seems a reasonable limit.
The Scarman report has been quoted extensively, but events have changed considerably since 1974. For example, Scarman was dealing with a situation and circumstance which had arisen before riot shields had become so apparent in the handling of demonstrations. Would Scarman have made the same recommendation had he been considering some of the problems that have arisen since? I wonder whether other respected judges, if not Scarman, would have come to a different conclusion.

Mr. Tom Litterick: rose—

Mr. Fowler: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber during the debate. I am coming to the end of my speech.
The proposal that notice should be given to the police was made by one of the most distinguished policemen that the country has had, the then Commissioner.
The Home Secretary made a constructive, fair and sensible speech. He said that we should take note of a local decision, of what the local people want, of how they feel, of how chief constables feel and the feelings of local authorities. I do not see how we can disagree with that.
It is clear that the local authority and the chief constable want clause 39 to be in the Bill. It does not restrict or limit any freedoms. It is a sensible and rational measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green has given the assurance that the proposal may be debated on the Floor of the House. That seems a rational and reasonable offer.
I very much hope that the proposal will have the support of the House.

Mr. Beith: Mr. Beithrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question he now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out clause 39.
As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: To the contrary "No".

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Clear the Lobby.

Mr. Litterick: Nobody said "No".

Mr. Speaker: It is not the hon. Gentleman who has to hear hon. Members shout "No". I have to hear them shout "No", and some hon. Members shouted "No".

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 95.

Division No. 70]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Alison, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan).


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Arnold, Tom
Elliott, Sir William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Emery, Peter
Hurd, Douglas


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Eyre, Reginald
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Awdry, Daniel
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Baker, Kenneth
Fairgrieve, Russell
James, David


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Beith, A. J.
Fell, Anthony
Jessel, Toby


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jopling, Michael


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forman, Nigel
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Biffen, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Biggs-Davison, John
Fox, Marcus
Kilfedder, James


Blaker, Peter
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kimball, Marcus


Body, Richard
Freud, Clement
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Knox, David


Brittan, Leon
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Lamont, Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brotherton, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Lawrence, Ivan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Lawson, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodhew, Victor
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Buck, Antony
Goodlad, Alastair
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Budges, Nick
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Loveridge, John


Burden, F. A.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Luce, Richard


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carlisle, Mark
Grey, Hamish
McCrindle, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grieve, Percy
Macfarlane, Neil


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
MacGregor, John


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David


Cockcroft, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hannam, John
Marten, Neil


Cope, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mates, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan
Mather, Carol


Costain, A. P.
Hastings, Stephen
Maude, Angus


Critchley, Julian
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Hayhoe, Barney
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Crowder, F. P.
Heseltine, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hodgson, Robin
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Drayson, Burnaby
Holland, Philip
Mills, Peter


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Miscampbell, Norman


Dunlop, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)




Moate, Roger
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Monro, Hector
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stokes, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Tapsell, Peter


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Morgan, Geraint
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tebbit, Norman


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mudd, David
Sainsbury, Tim 
Townsend, Cyril D.


Nelson, Anthony
 St. John-Stevas, Norman
Trotter, Neville 


Neubert, Michael
Scott, Nicholas
 van Straubenzee. W. R.


Newton, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Viggers, Peter


Nott, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Onslow, Cranley
Shepherd, Colin
Wakeham, John


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shersby, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Silvester, Fred
Walker-Smith, Rt Finn Sit Derek


Page, Richard (Workington)
Sims, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Pardoe, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Cecil
Skeet, T. H. H.
Warren, Kenneth


Pattie, Geoffrey
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Weatherill, Bernard


Penhaligon, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wells, John


Percival, Ian
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Pink, R. Bonner
Spence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sproat, Iain
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Raison, Timothy
Stainton, Keith
Younger, Hon George


Rathbone, Tim
Stanbrook, Ivor



Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanley, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
 Mr. Michael Roberts.


Rhodes James, R.






NOES


Abse, Leo
Cowans, Harry
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
George, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Cronin, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ginsburg, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cryer, Bob
Golding, John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gould, Bryan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Gourley, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Graham, Ted


Bates, Alf
 Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Grant, John (Islington C)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, nor (Gower)
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dewar, Donald
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Doig, Peter
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Home Robertson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.
Horam, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunnett, Jack
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Huckfield, Les


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Buchanan, Richard
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Ellis, John (Brig &amp; Scun)
Hunter, Adam


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Campbell, Ian
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Janner, Greville


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Cartwright, John
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
John, Brynmor


Clemitson, Ivor
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kelley, Richard







Kerr, Russell
Newens, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Oakes, Gordon
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Neil
Ogden, Eric
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lambie, David
O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamborn, Harry
Orbach, Maurice
Swain, Thomas


Lomond, James
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lee, John
Padley, Walter
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Palmer, Arthur
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Park, George
Tierney, Sydney


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John
Tilley, John


Litterick, Tom
Parry, Robert
Tinn, James


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pavitt, Laurie
Tomlinson, John


Lomas, Kenneth
Pendry, Tom
Tomney, Frank


Luard, Evan
Perry, Ernest
Torney, Tom


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tuck, Raphael


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Urwin, T. W.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Price, William (Rugby)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McElhone, Frank
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ward, Michael


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Watkinson, John


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Weetch, Ken


Madden, Max
Roderick, Caerwyn
Weitzman, David


Magee, Bryan
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rooker, J. W.
White, James (Pollok)


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rowlands, Ted
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ryman, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sedgemore, Brian
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Maynard, Miss Joan
Selby, Harry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Meacher, Michael
Sever, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch ch)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Rt Hon Harold (Huyton)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Woodall, Alec


Moonman, Eric
Silverman, Julius
Woof Robert


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter



Morton, George
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. John Evans.


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David

Division No. 71]
AYES
[10.27 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Grocott, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Penhaligon, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Phipps, Dr Colin


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Home Robertson, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bates, Alf
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bean, R. E.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rooker, J. W.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kerr, Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sever, John


Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Canavan, Dennis
Lamborn, Harry
Silverman, Julius


Cant, R. B.
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Clemitson, Ivor
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Snape, Peter


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Litterick, Tom
Stallard, A. W.


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David


Cowans, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cryer, Bob
McDonald. Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Urwin, T. W.


Edge, Geoff
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne v)


Ellis, John (Brig &amp; Scun)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mikardo, Ian
Ward, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Weetch, Ken


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Morton, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Flannery, Martin
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
Woof Robert


Forrester, John
Orme,Rt Hon Stanley



George, Bruce
Ovenden, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Golding, John
Pardoe, John
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Park, George
Mr. Emlyn Hooson


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Parry, Robert





NOES


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hannam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Banks, Robert
Hodgson, Robin
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhodes James, R.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Hon Peter
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Sainsbury, Tim


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James
Shepherd, Colin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shersby, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cope, John
Le Merchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Lester. Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Durant, Tony
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Farr, John
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tinn, James


Fletcher. Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector
Trotter, Neville


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moore. John (Croydon C)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Normanton, Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Graham, Ted
Nott, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Ogden, Eric
Younger, Hon George


Grey, Hamish
Page, John (Harrow West)



Grieve, Percy
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grist, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Ivan Lawrence and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

ordered.
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out clause 39.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Order of 2 November relating to Business of the House shall have effect with the omission from paragraph (3) of 2 March and in paragraph (4) of Monday 26 February, and the substitution of further days to be appointed by the House—[Mr.Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — SKILLCENTRE (ASHFORD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Snape.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: I am grateful to have this opportunity to debate tonight a matter which is important to industrialists and workers in my constituency. It also raises points of national importance. What the Minister has to say will be read keenly by many concerned with industrial training outside this House.
The town of Ashford features in the Kent county council's structure plan as Kent's growth area for the 1980s. The industrial relations in the town are excellent. There are many companies. Some are large multinationals. There are companies such as British Rail Engineering. They range right down to small businesses employing only a few people.
The population of the town is expanding in accordance with the structure plan and there are good further education facilities in the town. New industry, in accordance with the structure plan, is coming into the town, but the need was identified by local industrialists some years ago, and by the Ashford industrial group, for further industrial training facilities on a substantial scale to make expansion sensible and to train for new jobs.
Accordingly, in 1977 the Training Services Agency proposed the establishment of a skillcentre in Ashford, with approximately 120 places, and proposed to include things such as bricklaying, capstan setting operations, heavy vehicle repairs

and maintenance, refrigeration and air conditioning.
There then followed the apparently inevitable delay in finding a suitable site for the skill centre. This was the subject of correspondence between me and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks).
Then came, for me and for local industrialists, something of a bombshell, for at an industrial seminar in the latter half of last year, organised by the mayor of Ashford, we learned that there was delay concerning the site, about which we had been arguing, and also a major difference of opinion between the education world and the industrial world on the need for skillcentres. It seemed that there was a feeling that training could be done in further education colleges and that skillcentres as such were necessary.
To paraphrase the arguments of the education world, I refer to the chairman of the Kent county council further education committee, Councillor Draper, who very forcefully put it to me that skillcentres would appear to be duplicating the provision for courses which are currently provided or could be provided by further education colleges.
In a letter to me at the end of last year, Councillor Draper went on to say:
Colleges felt that they had excellent resources in all the areas which were proposed for Skillcentre and saw no need for public expenditure on providing Skillcentre when the money could be spent more usefully in other aspects of training
This view is partly backed up by the union concerned, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. In a recent press statement, dated 30 November last, the local branch said:
A Skillcentre of the size envisaged at Ashford is unnecessary in East Kent. Most of the work proposed for it can be accommodated within the existing facilities at the local colleges of technology which are already successfully running a range of TOPS courses in co-operation with the Training Services Division of the Manpower Services Commission.
It went on to say:
The staffs of the colleges are highly qualified craftsmen and experienced teachers. The college departments are advised by committees of local industrialists to ensure that courses meet local as well as national requirements. The proposed Ashford skillcentre,


welcomed by some local firms, could offer local industry a source of ready trained semiskilled labour without the need for costly industry based training schemes. Such would be in accordance with the aims of the Manpower Services Commission in carrying out its statutory duties. However, such a development in Ashford, duplicating as it would already existing facilities, would be a shameful waste of public money.
That was the view of the educationists. However, very much the contrary view has been taken by local industrialists. As the Minister will appreciate, they, after all, are the clients of the system. A contrary view is also taken by the chamber of trade. I have had a letter from it only this week, and it is very concerned about this matter. A contrary view is taken by the borough council, which has been most helpful and, again, has been very concerned throughout this saga.
The other union involved, the Civil Service Union, also takes a contrary view. It, of course, represents the staff and instructors at the skillcentres. In a recent paper to the Manpower Services Commission, it said:
In general the proposal that training should be geared to industrial requirements is sensible and should prove acceptable to the union"—
That is, the Civil Service Union.
It is in catering for industrial needs rather than individual aspirations in isolation from such needs that skillcentre training distinguishes itself from further education.
Only this week I had a long and helpful discussion with the union's assistant general secretary, and he made the important point that skillcentres deal with training and not education. I know that the Minister will appreciate that there is a difference between the two.
Secondly, on the whole, we are dealing with much older people than those who attend the colleges of further education. That point is made with considerable force by the Project Ashford liaison committee, which represents many local industrialists.
There is a clear divergence of view between the educationists and the Kent county council, on the one side, and the industrialists, the Civil Service Union and the Ashford borough council, on the other. I suspect that that divergence of view will be repeated in other parts of of the country where these matters are considered and debated. I am not suffi

ciently qualified to give a definitive answer, but I suspect that the answer lies between these two perhaps extreme positions.
Unnecessary expenditure of public money at any time, and particularly in the present circumstances, would be wrong. I am convinced that many of the industrial training or retraining courses can effectively be provided only by a new skillcentre. I accept that other courses could be catered for in the colleges of further education. This compromise, if that is the right word, may give us the best value for money. Indeed, if such a compromise is not the answer, the whole concept of skillcentres must be open to question.
I urge the Minister to endorse the provision of a skill centre with perhaps 30 or 40 places fewer than originally planned. The original planning was for 120 places. I ask the Minister in turn to urge his colleague at the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency to acquire the site and build the centre. This week the chief executive of the Ashford borough council told me that there is a suitable site for the special requirements of the Property Agency in Ashford. I hope that negotiations can proceed with a view to completion of the purchase of the site and the building of the centre, which will take some time.
This matter has been in limbo for too long. I look to the Minister tonight to get things moving.
The chief executive of the Ashford borough council wrote to me on 29 November last, saying that
as far as local industrialists are concerned the provision of a skillcentre in Ashford is a must".
They are absolutely right, but they do not want to wait for their old-age pensions before they and their employees can use it. I hope that the Minister can give us confidence that the industrial future of Ashford will be soundly based.

10.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) for raising this question on the Adjournment. He courteously and fairly outlined the issues. Like him, I know the pressures that have been exerted for and against a skillcentre in Ashford.
There is no doubt of the need for skilled training in Kent. That was one of the first propositions put to me when I took office. If there is to be a skillcentre, Ashford is by far the best site as far as the Manpower Services Commission is concerned. It is the strong view of the district manpower committee—including the trade unionists and the employers—that there should be a skillcentre in Ashford.
The Manpower Services Commission had tentatively decided, following a survey, to create a 120-place skillcentre. Those who support the establishment of the skillcentre in Ashford must have been heartened at that. Then came the strong opposition from the colleges of further education and others. I received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on behalf of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the building employers. The opposition is understandable. They argued that it was best to use existing facilities in the colleges rather than build a skillcentre.
I agree with those who say that it does not make sense to duplicate facilities or to spend public money unnecessarily. The MSC also holds that view, and that is why it has decided after serious consideration to abandon the idea of removing all the craft courses from the colleges and has decided to guarantee to the three colleges of further education concerned—at Ashford, Dover and Folkestone—continued support for existing training opportunities scheme craft courses. That will be welcome news to the educational organisations that have made strong representations to the hon. Member for Ashford and to the MSC. Their interest has been recognised.
A mini skillcentre providing about 80 places—the size envisaged by the hon. Member—will be created. I must emphasise that we need this centre. In fact, we need throughout the country to widen the scope of skillcentres to give them wider responsibilities.
I do not accept the arguments of those in the Civil Service Union who say that training must be kept separate from education. Nor do I accept that education must always be kept apart from

training. I look forward to the time when all young people and adults are able to receive training and education together.
At this time, when skill shortages are beginning to be reported, it is important to strengthen skillcentre provision The wider responsibilities for skillcentres that we envisage are set out in the TOPS review which states that skillcentres should continue to perform their role as providers of off-the-job occupational training for manual skills, but, first, with room for sharing with colleges in the provision of the practical work element in technician courses; secondly, the use of some skillcentre capacity as a testing ground for new forms of training, including work preparation; thirdly, an increase in the provision of semi-skill training in skillcentres, particularly in engineering, the development of some sectors to provide semi-skill training for young people and adults; and, fourthly, and particularly important, the use of skillcentres as a base for a more mobile and flexible approach to employers to sell them the direct training services.
This last proposal could be an important development for Kent because there is an important role for TOPS and the skillcentres to fulfil in encouraging employers, particularly small employers, to take advantage of the direct training services that the MSC, through the training services division, can provide. Indeed, all these developments are important and they could not be supplied through existing college arrangements. They should not be denied to Kent, but certainly would be if we did not go ahead with the mini skillcentre.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about PSA delays and I shall pass on his comment.
There are still difficulties, but, because of the needs of Kent for increased skill training, I shall ask all concerned to press on as quickly as possible with the provision of the mini skillcentre, without, as I have mentioned, undermining the important role of the colleges of further education.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.